Monday, June 22, 2020

The Great Apostasy - A provocative, book length contribution, from a Catholic perspective


Whilst recently engaged in online research, I discovered a fascinating contribution on the issue of “the Great Apostasy” from a Catholic perspective. The work is 263 pages in length, and is appropriately titled, The Great Apostasy. A free PDF copy can be downloaded via THIS LINK.

This book drew me in from the beginning, and apart from checking a number of the sources referenced within its pages for accuracy, I literally could not stop reading it. It has me deeply reflecting on the possibility that I may have misunderstood the very nature of what “the Great Apostasy" entails.

The book is a must read for folk who are of the opinion that we may be living in the eschatology period which immediately precedes the second coming of our Lord. I also suspect it might change the minds of some who are not of that opinion, but take the time to read and reflect on its contents—I am eagerly looking forward to dialogue with those who do so.


Grace and peace,

David

67 comments:

leeseykay said...

Hi Dave,

I wish I had more time and were a faster reader. I have read about the first third of what so far seems like an excellent summary of the history of the Catholic Church, the Great Apostasy, in recent times.

I have only come across a few items that I wasn't familiar with. But one was a "doozy". It is for good reason that the author keeps referring to "incoherency". How did you like the weird introduction of Paul VI to the Novus Ordo Mass? Obvious in the content is that the Traditional Roman Mass would be replaced with something else. It needed to be really good! Note the discouraging words of Paul VI:

"We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth."

One can wonder why a pope would promulgate something regrettable and almost bewildering, while losing something priceless! Traditional Catholics have wondered for over fifty years now, why such an exchange was made. Scores of books have been written in the last fifty years which comprehensively expose the defective and heretical prayers found in the Novus Ordo missal. Other works show how many distinctively Catholic expressions of orthodoxy have been omitted.

As with Paul VI, who did not seem to have an answer himself for why the Traditional Rite should be given up for "a banal, on the spot product", (Card. Ratzinger) there have been no answers. The New Mass has been theologically discredited. It has been criticized as an artistic disaster. The internet is filled with the just mockery of audio/visual recordings of the New Mass which is regularly given over to the most puerile antics by priests and parishioners who are supposed to be adults. The New Mass is presented in print, by spoken word, and by video, as an embarrassment to mature and thoughtful Catholics. Where is the champion who can explain why it is good that the New Mass replaced something "priceless"? I am unfamiliar with anybody who has loved it enough or believed in it enough to make a comprehensive public defense of the New Mass, to those who have sincerely and earnestly presented their misgivings.

The silence is weird. The only "defense" for the New Mass is the force of authority, slightly weakened by Benedict XVI. The Church has never behaved like this. The Church has always condescended to explain Herself to those in opposition, even when they were hostile, who were questioning her practices or doctrine. Not anymore. The Donatists, the Pelagians, Berengarius, and even Martin Luther had doctrinal exchanges with ecclesiastical authority. I think the Conciliarists would put forth a "champion" if they could find one. Alas, no Augustine, nor an Aquinas, not even an Eck, to speak for the loveliness of the New Mass! In some respects, I see this lack of a "champion" to defend the Church, as an even more troubling novelty pointing to widespread apostasy in the Church.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to share some of your thoughts on the Paul VI and the New Mass. Interestingly enough, I had just finished reading a book that touches on this subject:

The Council In Question – A Dialogue With Catholic Traditionalism

Pages 13-41 discuss the changes in the liturgy concerning the Eucharist/Mass.

The Paul VI quote you provided from The Great Apostasy, prompted me to track down the original source—it from Paul VI’s, CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE - Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969 [LINK].

Personally speaking, I found that the greater context provided from reading the entire address lessens the ‘shock’ of the partial quote. Note the following:

>>11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19).

13. St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, "Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed" (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful "should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father" (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).>>

Another must read was an address by Paul VI that was delivered the week before the above—THE MASS IS THE SAME [LINK].

These two addresses are a good starting point for those of us who are trying to understand why the changes in the Mass were instituted. I have only ‘scratched the surface’ of this highly charged topic. Sometime in the near future, I hope to obtain and read the following book:

The Pope, the Council, and the Mass

Now, with all that said, though the changes of the New Mass can possibly be understood in a sense that IS NOT indicative of a “Great Apostasy”, the book you are currently reading provides much more substantive elements which strongly suggest otherwise. Along those lines, I was able to track down a PDF copy of book quoted in that I am sure you will find of interest: Father Luigi Villa’s, Paul VI beatified? [LINK].

Back to my studies—hope you can find the time to read the two addresses by Paul VI, and share some thoughts on them.


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Dave, hi.

Thanks for finding the rest of Paul VI's defense of the New Mass. I'll start with this:

11) "Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech."

Has it been established that modern people are "so fond" of "plain language"?

Does the author have a footnote showing the academic research which demonstrates that modern people can be characterized as having a linguistic appetite that is "so fond" of "plain language", as opposed to their own fathers as to, in the times of Paul VI, finally require the suppression of Latin, for the sake of their very souls?

I thought "modern people" were supposed to be more advanced. According to Dignitis Humunae they have an advanced morality. From many other Vatican II documents, one gains the idea that "modern people" have taken an ontological leap forward, at least morally. But to justify The New Mass, which violates the very instructions of the Vatican II document regarding Latin in the liturgy, Paul VI appeals to what seems like an intellectual liability if it means getting rid of something priceless, and forcing bewilderment. Sorry. But I do not believe that "modern people" are intellectually retarded or morally advanced. They are like their fathers.

When did people presumably make this necessary transition from being less fond to moderately fond to "so fond" of "plain language"? Is this the end of the trend? Could post modern people become "wildly fond" of plain language?

It is the Church's duty and the pope's duty to pass along the faith whole and entire to each generation. Assuming I am wrong about doubting ontological advance/retreat in "modern people", it is not necessarily the Church's duty to suppress beautiful and time-honored expressions of faith simply to appease people of ANY generation simply because they have developed a lack of appreciation for mystery and beauty, coupled with some weird and immoderate attachment to something called "plain language". I did not see anything like a definition for this "plain language", to which modern people are allegedly so powerfully drawn. Maybe we can examine what that apparently means in a following post.

Gotta run. Thanks again.

Rory

TOm said...


David and Rory!

Well, I have been reading this book. I am not sure where it came from. I have asked my Catholic sedevacantist friend about it and he didn’t seem familiar. I have also been trying to ask other places. It seems like a mystery of sorts. The Seminary this fellow went to is down the road from me in Baltimore which is interesting!

I can and I expect will say lots of words. I hope they will result in discussion (or complete agreement would be OK too, but less interesting).

First, I will respond as a Christian who I hope is embracing the proper amount of skepticism as I engage with questions of faith. I have quoted a term used by some poster from my past, “the fallacy of fundamentalist assumptions.” My recent pondering on this idea has left me with the following thoughts and ultimately criticism for SOME of what I see in my faith, the Catholic faith, the woke-leftism, and the Q-anon rightism.

The Bible tells us that we see through a glass darkly. I recently mentioned this to someone and they said, that they do not because their “eyes have been open.” I do not know if this author would claim to have his eyes open and to KNOW that Pope Francis is not the Pope because he has reviewed the evidence/data and that others if they are willing could review the evidence/data and also KNOW that Pope Francis is not the Pope. But, to the extent he might I find this problematic.

My current thoughts are that seeing through a glass darkly means that we cannot do the sums as God does. God has made some of us such that we study and ponder evidence and data. This means we should. But, I cannot subscribe to the view that the data produces only one unambiguous solution to these great questions we ask ourselves (if does, it is mine of course, but I don’t think it does).

As a LDS, I allow myself a good deal of liberty to embrace a view of “answer to prayers” that creates “certitude.” I grant to my Catholic brothers and sisters a “certitude” born of the Eucharist or …. I do not presume to KNOW how these things might be aligned in the absolute truth that comes from God’s view.

So seeing through a glass darkly does not IMO mean I must be anxiously unsure of God’s path for me. But it does mean that when I start to marshal evidence/data for my position I should acknowledge that this data does not unambiguously point to a single conclusion. To say that my eyes are open because of the data and yours are not is to embrace a fundamentalism that often fails and almost always alienates.

I do not know if the author does this. So far I have seen nothing that tells me he is unwilling to say, “I could be wrong about the data, but this is the best interpretation I can muster.” Or unwilling to say, “This data is the best interpretation I can muster and my communication with God gives me confidence / certitude that I am on the path God desires me to walk (which aligns with the data).”

Charity, TOm

TOm said...


David and Rory again!

My second response is largely the same as it has always been. My quick take on Rory’s response and your post is that Paul VI’s comments on the new mass are not near as damning as the author seems to indicate when taken in context, which I think then mutes Rory’s thought that something new is here. Rather, much of this is the standard post Vatican II problems (including the colored smoke and anti-Pope data that has been around in Sedevacantist circles for a while).

I think the author pulls together quite a number of different problems. Some I had seen, some I had not. I want to point to two pro-LDS aspects of this.

1. I have been told that the Bible precludes a “Great Apostasy” over and over again. Now we have a Catholic priest who has decided that “the falling away” is at hand. He has mustered not only Biblical verses LDS point to, but words written by Catholic visionaries and leaders. I submit that LDS who see these things in the Bible aligning with things we cannot explain without an appeal to the supernatural (like the BOM) are on more solid footing that are Catholics who claim the Bible does not allow for the great apostasy. As I am sure we have discussed, Jews expected a conquering king as their Messiah. Christians say they got a suffering servant, but the Jews don’t believe it. Catholics typically claim that the Bible means that Christ will always be with His Catholic Church thus an apostasy is impossible. I suspect the author of this book would claim that the Bible is a Catholic book understood by the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church and the great apostasy that we see post Vatican II CANNOT be a symptom of a church that needed to be RESTORED in 1830 by Joseph Smith. One or both of these “Catholic” positions are wrong.

2. 20+ years ago as I engaged with the best view of Catholicism I could find in my limited ability to evaluate data, I felt that the conservative read of Vatican II was the strongest position with which I should compare a view of the CoJCoLDS which I considered to be the strongest position for LDS truth claims. It is my contention that the evidence/data that I weighed and measured resulted in me finding it more likely that Joseph Smith initiated a restoration of God’s church under divine direction than that Pope John Paul II is the Vicar of Christ and his (JPII’s) church was/is His (Christ’s) church.

Over the course of the 20+ years we have discussed this, I have seen some Book of Abraham scholarship that I think I could mention as a problem and a number of other things that are just lots of noise on the LDS side. But, on the Catholic side of the equation it is clear to me that the earthly head of the Catholic Church is either gone, underground, or Pope Francis (who rejects the view of the Catholic Church that I thought was stronger than any other 20 years ago). Any one of these three things makes the Catholic position MUCH weaker than it was 20 years ago IMO. And the BOA problems are not even in the same league. My BIASED assessment is that the CoJCoLDS wins by a larger margin than it did 20 years ago when I did the sums as best I knew how.

And then there is prayer!

Charity, TOm

TOm said...

I would also like to quote a few sections that stood out to me:

“The reasonable objection may be made, “but hasn’t Catholicism had its share of unsavory characters, hypocrites, liars, murderers and immoral people of every persuasion?” Of course, the answer is “yes,” but these people were not our founders, and these actions were a contradiction of our fundamental beliefs, not the logical extension of them.” P 41-42


I believe that the founder of my church is Jesus Christ and He is perfect! I suspect Lutherans and Catholics say the same thing.

“Every council in the history of the Church was convoked to combat Satan and to put an end to the errors of the age; now, Satan had a council of his own through which to disseminate his errors.*”…
*(The guaranteed protection of the Holy Spirit in the Church’s magisterium is not discarded by this analysis. That the parameters of this guarantee are often misrepresented and not so well understood by faithful Catholics is part of the reason the council was able to get away with such indescribable incompetence and recklessness. Many excellent works exist on the topic, but it is beyond the scope of this work).” P. 38

I have long felt that Catholic definitions of Ecumenical vs. Local councils is largely self-serving and much less data based. I am aware of Rory’s position of “sealed by a Pope,” but as time passes I submit Vatican II is sealed by a bunch of Popes who Rory claims are Popes. This guy says Vatican II is a council for Satan.

Conciliar Infallibility, Papal Infallibility, and what this author appears to demand (and is more ancient) Ecclesiastical Infallibility do not seem particularly historical to me. If history showed a path that demonstrated these Infallibiilities (even with some development thrown in) it would be a powerful pro-Catholic apologetic. Instead, I think one must assume the infallibilities exist and bend over backwards to explain away a lot of evidence to the contrary. This author just says others have done it and we should go read their works.

And this:
“The Feast of the Chair of Peter, celebrated on February 22, is a commemoration of Peter’s primacy over the universal Church, as conferred by Christ. Yet, the opening prayer reads, ‘All powerful Father, you have built your Church on the rock of St. Peter’s confession of faith.’ On the very feast honoring the primacy of the Pope, the Church is mandated to pray a heresy, a heresy which undermines the office of the Papacy it is supposed to be celebrating! Indeed, ‘the apostasy in the Church will begin at the top…’

In paragraph 424, the heresy from above is repeated: ‘On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.’” p. 52

Note: 424 is from CCC and it is quoting Pope Leo (the author claims this is a partial quote and the Pope Leo embraces the Catholic view, but he is wrong).

What is true and also true for Catholic ECF, Catholic Popes, and the CCC &&& true for LDS General Authorities is that “the Rock” has been spoken of as “Peter’s confession,” “the person Peter,” and as “Christ.” The author has chosen to make a point that is not valid. The CCC and Pope Leo point to the Rock as Peter and as Peter’s confession, but the author claim Pope Leo is an infallible Pope and the CCC is a post Vatican II abomination. I don’t like it, and I do not like it when LDS are criticized for emphasizing Peter Confession = Rock more often than Peter = Rock or Christ = Rock.

I also have a question for both of you. When this conflict arises MOST of the time is it not Catholics saying Peter=Rock and Protestants saying Christ=Rock? It was curious to me that the author spoke as if the most frequent conflict was associated with Confession=Rock. Maybe the author has more contact with LDS than most Catholic apologists.

I hope I have said things that can lead to thoughts and conversation. I hope none will lead to offense. These posts are just what jumped out at me so far.

Charity, TOm

leeseykay said...

Tom...excellent. I wasn't going to post...until Saturday. I think my first paragraph is ironclad. Both of you might wish to poke holes in the second which is more speculative.

The Church has always believed in a "falling away" before the revealing of the Antichrist. It is important to note that this "great apostasy" does NOT correspond with the LDS version. They are unequal. For instance, this author who would still seem to be in your archdiocese, will never suggest that his own ordination is invalidated by the "great apostasy" which is the subject of this book.

Declaring the papacy vacant is not something I wish to pursue. But I believe I am free to wonder if a future council might declare a vacancy going back...who knows how far? Abp. Lefebvre admitted once that a future council might find John Paul II not to have been the successor of Peter! But he behaved under the assumption that he was pope. I believe Catholics are confined to believing that the Rock, Peter, was that on which the Church was to be built, "the gates of hell not prevailing". I do as well. But I am not so sure about the way most conservatives and traditionalists would hold that a sixty year vacancy would prove that Catholic interpretation false. Because of THAT interpretation, they persist in defending the popes who presided over the "great apostasy". I am thinking we might have a little more wiggle room.

Rory


Anyway...great to see you Tom.

David Waltz said...

Tom !!!

It is so good to see you back. Thanks much for taking the time to comment. In your opening paragraph, you wrote:

==The Seminary this fellow went to is down the road from me in Baltimore which is interesting!==

Interesting indeed. I did not recall the author mentioning by name the seminary he attended, but when I went back to the sections wherein he mentioned his seminary days, I noticed that he did write that the seminary he attended, “for decades, had been known as ‘The Pink Palace.’” (p. 63)

A Google search revealed that “The Pink Palace” is St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, MD—thanks for the insightful 'heads-up’.

A bit later, you penned:

==My current thoughts are that seeing through a glass darkly means that we cannot do the sums as God does. God has made some of us such that we study and ponder evidence and data. This means we should. But, I cannot subscribe to the view that the data produces only one unambiguous solution to these great questions we ask ourselves (if does, it is mine of course, but I don’t think it does).==

I think your points are quite valid. But what if we narrow down “the great questions” to just one: which church is God’s 'one, true Church’?

Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but both the Bible and the BoM sure seem to teach that true seekers will be able to identify that ‘one, true Church.’

Hope to delve into your second post tomorrow, the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

Yesterday, you wrote:

==1. I have been told that the Bible precludes a “Great Apostasy” over and over again. Now we have a Catholic priest who has decided that “the falling away” is at hand. He has mustered not only Biblical verses LDS point to, but words written by Catholic visionaries and leaders.==

The concept of a “Great Apostasy” before the second coming of Jesus Christ can be found in Catholic writings/thought from the second century—first century if one includes the Bible—through the 21st. Generally speaking, it is linked to the revealing of the “man of sin”/”the son of perdition” (i.e. the Antichrist).

== But, on the Catholic side of the equation it is clear to me that the earthly head of the Catholic Church is either gone, underground, or Pope Francis (who rejects the view of the Catholic Church that I thought was stronger than any other 20 years ago). Any one of these three things makes the Catholic position MUCH weaker than it was 20 years ago IMO.==

Very interesting. The above is germane to something I have been pondering over since reading “The Great Apostasy”—if the RCC has been in deep apostasy since the middle of the 20th century, should not one consider the possibility that the RCC is the ‘Babylon the Great’ spoken of in the book of Revelation?

If the RCC is now in an apostate condition, should not true believers ‘flee’?

Further, if the RCC was Christ’s ‘one, true Church’ prior to this “Great Apostasy”, where are true believers to ‘flee’ to?


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Hi Tom,

Tom, (quoting the author we are reading)
“The Feast of the Chair of Peter, celebrated on February 22, is a commemoration of Peter’s primacy over the universal Church, as conferred by Christ. Yet, the opening prayer reads, ‘All powerful Father, you have built your Church on the rock of St. Peter’s confession of faith.’ On the very feast honoring the primacy of the Pope, the Church is mandated to pray a heresy, a heresy which undermines the office of the Papacy it is supposed to be celebrating! Indeed, ‘the apostasy in the Church will begin at the top…’

In paragraph 424, the heresy from above is repeated: ‘On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.’” p. 52

Tom
Note: 424 is from CCC and it is quoting Pope Leo (the author claims this is a partial quote and the Pope Leo embraces the Catholic view, but he is wrong).

Rory
The author's criticism is justifiably directed at the New Mass in its prayer, and at the new catechism #424, for giving an unnecessarily false impression of unity with Protestants. Both are examples of where the distinctively Catholic truth is omitted. It is a common strategy of the Council, and the new Mass: de-emphasis of that which is distinctively Catholic, combined with overemphasis where beliefs overlap.

I could not find Sermon 4:3 of St. Leo (that is referenced) by the CCC. You said that the author claims that the CCC provided a partial quote that fails to reveal how Leo held that St. Peter was the Rock. The CCC does not quote St. Leo the Great at all. It makes an assertion with a footnote to a sermon that is probably only found in the Latin of Migne.

Interestingly I did find a short English citation from Sermon 4:2 which gives whatever 4:3 might say, some context. It is offered in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott. It reads as follows:

"only Peter was chosen out of the whole world to be the Head of all called peoples, of all the Apostles and of all the Fathers of the Church"

Ott continues to explain the position of the Church:

"In the defensive struggle against Arianism many Fathers take the rock on which the Lord built the Church as meaning the faith of Peter in the divinity of Christ, without, however, excluding the reference to Peter's person, which is clearly indicated in the text. Peter's faith was the reason why he was appointed by Christ as the support of the Church."

---p. 281, TAN Books and Publishers, (1974), Rockford, IL

What the author and I disapprove of on the part of the CCC #424, and of the prayer in the New Mass for the Feast of Peter's Chair, is that it gives the distinct impression that Catholics now agree with everybody else. The citation above from Pope Leo's Sermon 4:2, would be enough, regardless of whether it teaches that Peter is the rock, and regardless of what he might have said in 4:3, to disabuse anyone of the notion that Catholics agree with the Protestants about the exclusive identity of the rock in Mt. 16, and continuing successors of St. Peter. Perhaps that is why he felt that the CCC was misusing Leo as an authority for their claim that Peter's confession was the rock in #424. While they commented on 4:3 without quoting it, they ignored 4:2, because it would have magnified the distinctively Catholic claim that the Church is built on St. Peter himself.

Thanks for your consideration,

Rory

leeseykay said...

Allow me please to offer an important correction without the need to delete, re-write, and re-post. Above I think I made too strong a claim in the last paragraph of my latest post where I took note that what the author and I are critical about, "gives the distinct impression that..."

I would rather say that what the author and I are critical about "...gives the false perception for the possibility that..."

The danger is more subtle than obvious.

Thanks

R.

David Waltz said...

Hello again Tom

This morning, I responded to an email I had received earlier this week from a returned LDS missionary who had served in my area a little over one year ago. Sister Gardiner is somewhat unique—in my experience—when it comes to LDS missionaries in that she did not serve until after getting her bachelors degree. As such, she was a bit older (22) than the vast majority of missionaries (male and female) whom I have encountered over the years. This last email contained a link to a BYU devotional that I have not read yet:

Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence

The timing of the email is interesting to me, in that Elder Holland’s talk sure seems to germane to the following you wrote:

== So seeing through a glass darkly does not IMO mean I must be anxiously unsure of God’s path for me. But it does mean that when I start to marshal evidence/data for my position I should acknowledge that this data does not unambiguously point to a single conclusion. To say that my eyes are open because of the data and yours are not is to embrace a fundamentalism that often fails and almost always alienates.==

Perhaps I am naïve, but the data and experiences that Elder Holland relates in his address sure seems to remove ambiguity. The following particularly stood out:

>>I love the combination there of both mind and heart. God will teach us in a reasonable way and in a revelatory way—mind and heart combined—by the Holy Ghost.>>

What think ye???


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...


Hello David and Rory,

I wanted to quickly respond to David’s last post. I hope to respond to others someday. David quoted me disparaging a fundamentalism that says, “when I start to marshal evidence/data for my position I should that this data does not unambiguously point to a single conclusion. To say that my eyes are open because of the data and yours are not is to embrace a fundamentalism that often fails and almost always alienates.”

I also said, “As a LDS, I allow myself a good deal of liberty to embrace a view of ‘answer to prayers’ that creates ‘certitude.’”

I believe that Elder Holland would embrace much and perhaps all of what I said. The “certitude” I have means that I am not, “anxiously unsure of God’s path for me.” I do not think the data without my testimony indicates that I am on the wrong path to the contrary, I think it indicates I am on the right path. I embrace Newman’s statement as he pondered on Vatican I PROBLEMS (which are much bigger than Vatican II deniers seem to recognize IMO, though I think Pope Francis problems are bigger than both V1 and V2 problems), ““Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt” –Newman. When I review the data and I determine the CoJCoLDS is probably God’s Church on earth, I also do what LDS are counseled to do which I pray to know what God would have me do. I guess it would be unfair for me to say the external/objective data creates the “certitude” I think Elder Holland wants LDS to hold onto. Instead, the internal/subjective testimony creates the “certitude,” the compelling narrative within the data, “maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” – Austin Farrar (often quoted by Elder Maxwell).

I hope that makes sense.

Charity, TOm

TOm said...

“when I start to marshal evidence/data for my position I should recognize/believe that this data does not unambiguously point to a single conclusion. To say that my eyes are open because of the data and yours are not is to embrace a fundamentalism that often fails and almost always alienates.”

I think I missed a word or two. I think the above is better.
I might end with "To say/beleive that my eyes are open because of the data and yours are not if you cannot see the unambiguous truth, is to embrace a fundamentalism ..."

Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

Before I share some thoughts concerning your post from last night, I want to point out a typo in my Sunday post: "a BYU devotional that I have not read yet", should read, " a BYU devotional that I had not read yet” (I have read it twice now).

You wrote:

== I do not think the data without my testimony indicates that I am on the wrong path to the contrary, I think it indicates I am on the right path.==

Thanks much for the clarification. The combination of “mind and heart” (i.e. intellect and spirit) that Elder Holland emphasizes is extremely important (IMO). I must stress that any de-emphasis of either aspect will ultimately lead one into error.

Looking forward to your reflections on the other posts...


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory and Tom,

A few minutes ago, I posted the following over at Dave Armstrong’s blog:

>>Hi Dave,

This thread is quite interesting to me, especially the timing of when you posted it. About ten days, I ordered The Great Façade. I found out about the book via a lengthy digital contribution titled, The Great Apostasy (see THIS POST for information, and access of a free PDF version). I received the book on the 16th, the same day you published this post—hence the ‘quite interesting'.

Now, I plan to start reading The Great Façade tomorrow, hoping to remain objective while being faced with two polar-opposite assessments of the book: your negative view, and the positive take by the author of The Great Apostasy. I may be in touch with questions in the near future…


Grace and peace,

David>>

[Link to Dave’s above mentioned thread HERE.]

Dave has clearly investigated the issue of this thread at length; but then, so has the author of The Great Apostasy. As I mentioned to Dave, I plan to start reading The Great Façade tomorrow. Hope to share some thoughts on the book when finished.


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

Hello Rory and David,
I thought I would try to provide some more responses. I think Rory said, the paragraph that begins, “One can wonder why a pope would promulgate something regrettable and almost bewildering, while losing something priceless!,” was pretty solid, and the following one could be undermined (by pointing to Paul VI’s defense of the new mass I am guessing).
I have often conceded that were it not for “the restoration,” I would not be a “restorationist in waiting.” I am pretty sure if it were not for Pope Francis, I would not be a Catholic convinced that Vatican II was a mistake. I still look at a number of groups of folks and wonder which is “more Catholic.” Everything I thought I knew about Catholicism indicates that Pope Francis is less Catholic than Rory, Jimmy Akin, Father Weinandy, or my Sedavacantist friend.
I suppose the liberal, Catholicism can change with the times in fundamental ways, is a stronger position because the head of the Catholic Church embraces this view. I think the view I previous thought was strongest is weaker than it was before Pope Francis. I am not sure what to do with Rory’s view, the part that is, “Pope, you are mistaken about this and that and should help correct these problems,” is strengthened. The part that is, “Pope, I respect you as the Holy Father and believe you are Infallible ‘concerning faith and morals, when speaking form the chair of Peter, and trying to authoritatively define truth,’” is weaker in my view. Perhaps the Sedavacatist view is stronger than it was before Pope Francis. There are educated Catholics who believe that Pope Benedict is still the Pope due either to technicalities of his words when he stepped down or being under duress and unfree as he stepped down.
Concerning the mass, is your argument that the post VII mass cannot Transubstantiate the host into Christ? Wouldn’t that be a rather profound even great apostasy by itself? I would think that is not your position.
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

Hello David,
If I understand what Dave Armstrong is saying he is suggesting that folks who have a problem with Francis also have a problem with Vatican II and that somehow pointing to Pope Francis problems is only done because the folks who do it departed from Catholicism in response to Vatican II.
I am not sure why this would be a profound argument in his favor, but I would offer myself as a minor exception to his view.
Before Pope Francis set fire to Tradition as I had been taught to believe it existed in the Catholic Church, I am on record claiming that I believed that the strongest Catholic position was to embrace the Pope and embrace Vatican II. But, one still needed to reject much that was done in the “spirit of Vatican II.” I think this was Dave Armstrong’s position before Pope Francis too.
I can also offer my cube mate at work who is not theologically precise, but he attends a conservative Catholic parish. He is troubled by Francis, but it has not impacted his attendance and devotion to the faith.

Pope Francis has said and done things that make it clear to me that the purported head of the Catholic Church is not Catholic like Dave Armstrong claimed to be Catholic just 7 years ago. I am not sure I have come down on what the papacy of Pope Francis means for the strongest (or new strongest) Catholic position of the many options, but I have claimed that the papacy of Pope Francis has dealt a blow to the view I thought Dave Armstrong and I shared 7 years ago making it weaker.
Pope Benedict XVI managed to upset folks with a few things he said and did, but my view was that he was more like pre-Paul VI Popes than he was like Paul VI or John 23rd. Pope Francis makes Paul VI and John 23rd look conservative. Pope Francis : Pope Paul VI :: Pope Paul VI : Pope Pius X. I thought Pope Benedict XVI might agree with the position I held and I thought Dave Armstrong held. I do not think Pope Francis does.
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

It occurred to me that I do not like this statement that I made:
"Before Pope Francis set fire to Tradition as I had been taught to believe it existed in the Catholic Church, I am on record claiming that I believed that the strongest Catholic position was to embrace the Pope and embrace Vatican II."
I should have said something like, "Before Pope Francis taught and acted in ways that I believe indicate he does not respect Catholic Tradition as I had been taught to believe it should be respected (and indeed should govern what is and is not allowed under the banner of development), I am on record claiming that I believed that the strongest Catholic position was to embrace the Pope and embrace Vatican II.

It also occurs to me that perhaps I am a further example of the trend Dave Armstrong sees (rather than an exception). I as a non-Catholic see the development of a concept of "Development" as a tough thing to align with SOME of the consistent writings over the centuries. Before Pope Francis, I did hold a view that the possession of "all truth" and the "unchanging" nature of Catholic dogma was something that had to be explained, defended, and qualified in light of historical truth. That it was not something that the Catholic could say, "Look at how history shows the Catholic Chruch possessed all truth and consistently taught it without need for alteration and correction; this is evidence that God is at the head of the Catholic Church."

Instead, the Catholic can say here is history, here is how to view development, here is why it is true to says that the Catholic Church possessed "all truth unchangingly." And isn't it wonderful to be part of an organization that can say this. The Catholic can also so that as society changes radically, Catholicism resists mightily (if this was the test, I think the years 33AD-2007AD or perhaps 325AD-1962AD would be a lot more consistent than the LDS years from 1830-2020).

Anyway, so to a certain extent, I, like Dave Armstrong’s opponents, saw enough post Vatican II (indeed enough post the Apostolic Age) to say that if unchangingness is the test Catholicism does not pass before Pope Francis. Pope Francis makes it difficult to see how any version of Catholicism that does not strongly reject the teachings of Pope Francis passes the “unchangingness test.”

I still think the concept of qualified preservation of Tradition offered by Catholic Answer before Pope Francis was a much stronger position than whatever similar concept exists after Pope Francis. To the extent that Vatican II gave Catholicism Pope Francis, it is and always was the problem only I did not know it before.
Charity, TOm

leeseykay said...

Tom,

I kind of enjoyed that you said "set fire to Tradition", rather than me! I still do.

So...for you and Dave...what do you think of Dave Armstrong's accusation that the enemies of Francis, are lying about him? On what or upon whose testimony are you basing your opinions of Francis?

Do either of you think it is credible that Catholics who have expressed misgivings and opposition to Francis' words and actions, are engaging in simple slander?

I go to the LDS board and I find that some of them, like Tom, can see that Francis is against what Catholic Tradition teaches. Many like him for it. A dear cousin, an affable but completely irreligious and silly fellow, thought to be ingratiating to his Catholic cousin by admitting that Francis is the first pope he ever really liked. I took it without contradiction. He meant well. God bless him.

There are many, many more people who love Pope Francis because they think that "the lies" are true too! They are convinced as well as Traditionalists that Francis is a political liberal who would like to replace the ancient faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church with something more to their liking. So who is lying, if you are to believe Armstrong? My cousin wasn't paying attention to C. Ferrara, Abp. Vigano, or T. Marshall, or me. My cousin believed what the mainstream media believes and reports about Francis.

Naturally, Traditionalists oppose Francis for the reasons that the world and the media love him. I wish Dave Armstrong could inform Traditional Catholics in addition to Communists, Muslims, Jews, Freemasons, Protestants, atheists, homosexuals, and all worldlings (those who never think about death and eternity), how that Francis believes everything the Catholic Church has ever taught about the blessings of Traditional Catholicism, and the dangers of being attached to any of the other groups. Everybody believes the same "lies" about Bergoglio, but only Traditional Catholics are disturbed by it.

Rory

TOm said...

Hello Rory,
I didn't think that would offend you, but it occurred to me that it would offend some folks who post at Catholic Answers and could be viewed as disrespectful to Catholicism and Pope Francis.
I think your position that Francis is celebrated by non-Catholic liberals is worthy of response from Dave A, but if he has not offered it I am pretty certain I know what it is. I think he would say, "Liberal media and liberals in general are interested in remaking Catholic, breaking with Tradition, CHANGING. They lie about Pope Francis and celebrate what they claim he says, but they misrepresent him. The Catholic Traditionalist say the same thing about Pope Francis, but they use it to claim he is not really the Pope or he is the Pope but must be resisted in some ways due to his heresy.”
I think Dave A’s position is remarkably weak. There are at least a few examples I think Dave A’s position would lose by unanimous judgment if judged by 12 Buddist Monks who have thought less than 10mins about Catholicism and Christianity their entire life. Assuming we could get them to sit through a few hours of discussion and debate.
I would like Dave A to convince me that all is well enough with the below such that these 12 Buddist Monks would maybe agree with him.
cont...

TOm said...

The modern CCC is the most magisterially blessed Catechism since Trent. I suspect you would say it is not on par with the statement concerning faith and morals coming out of the 20 EC you accept as more than just “pastoral councils.” I suspect you would say that it is not on par with the 2 exercises of Papal Infallibility that everyone agrees were exercises of Papal Infallibility. But, I believe you are required to believe the CCC has been divinely revealed because it is an exercise of the “ordinary universal magisterium.”
Pope Francis changed the CCC and ALL CATHOLIC PRELATES let him without saying this cannot be and I will not be in communion with a church that promulgates this document.
The change I speak of is:

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.



It is my position that there are only a few ways to embrace this as divinely revealed.
1. The Catholic Church (and Bible) were wrong to allow for the death penalty because it “is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” A “dignity” that is not diminished or eradicated by committing of crime. This was an error of the past.
2. The modern person is different than the ancient person and now has an “inviolability and dignity” that is attacked inappropriately by the death penalty. This seems ridiculous.
I am very middle of the road when it comes to the death penalty. I would be happy to follow John Paul II and say that steel bars and modern governments are capable of protecting society so in light of errors associated with the death penalty (where innocent people are executed), it should not be used any longer.
Anyway, I do not think Dave Armstrong could convince said jury of 12 Buddist Monks that all is well with this CHANGE made by Pope Francis and approved by ALL CATHOLIC BISHOPS. There may be some Bishops who might be Catholic (because Pope Francis is not) and they refuse to commune with the church he heads and which promulgates this document.
I feel like the above is less disrespectful than my “set fire” comment, but more harsh. I also expect you will not like it. As I spoke with David I thought about this some. As I thought about Dave A trying to defend Pope Francis I thought about this more. As I wrote it I came to realize that I believe it to be quite solid (but I recognize I probably am missing something).
Let me offer this link to someone who I think is still in communion with Pope Francis and the ordinary universal magisterium, but sees “a doctrinal error, pure and simple.” I will need to read more by him to understand how he parses these things (and or you can tell me I do not understand the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium).
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/08/pope-francis-and-capital-punishment.html
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

Thanks much for your recent posts. You have certainly given me—and I suspect many other folk who are reading this thread—much to reflect on.

At the end of your last post you provided a link to Dr. Feser’s blog post, Pope Francis and capital punishment.

I read this post, and a number of the other contributions linked to within it, when first published. I found the majority of Dr. Feser’s assessments to be compelling; however, his take on when a teaching is infallible left me unconvinced (see THIS THREAD).

Unless I have totally misunderstood Dr. Feser, if I were to apply his arguments concerning when a teaching is infallibly taught to the issues of slavery and usury, I would be lead to believe that slavery is valid in some circumstances, and the charging of interest is never valid.

After much reflection on the inter-related topics of capital punishment, revisions of the liturgy, ecumenism, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, the validity of Vatican II, et al., it sure seems to me that the fundamental issue at hand is this: when is a teaching infallible/irreformable?

A subset of this issue is: when is a teaching merely social in nature rather than strictly doctrinal and/or moral?

Personally speaking, I have not been able to reach a definitive answer; as such, this beachbum continues his in depth research…


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

David and Rory,
I want to do three things:
1. I want to reiterate a position that I hold that I offered earlier and was at least originally misunderstood.
2. Then I want to relate some aspects of a dialogue I had with a Catholic from LONG ago (so long ago I am sure they are quite colored by my memory, but they at absolutely real to me).
3. Having painted a picture that I chose to paint, I want to comment on David’s last post concerning infallibility.
These are my things that do not have to be anyone else’s things.
1. It is my position that if we allow for the possibility that God exists in the way the average LDS and Catholic in the pew AGREE upon for His existence, then we can evaluate data associated with the Catholic Church, the CoJCoLDS, other Christian Churches, and other faiths. I can highlight two things that are involved in how I weigh this data. The existence and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and the coming forth of the Book of Abraham. I consider it beyond a shadow of a doubt that the BOM has supernatural origins. I believe the origins of the Book of Abraham and all we know about the Book of Breathing and … reflect negatively upon the idea that Joseph Smith is a prophet and the CoJCoLDS is God’s church. But, if both of these are to be allowed to impact my understanding, the CoJCoLDS still has supernatural origins AND in all likelihood divine origins. There are no non-question begging explanations for the origins of the BOA, but I am left with two choices. Accept the BOM and reject the BOA OR accept both upon the strength of the BOM and the difficulties with the bifurcation of my assent. I choice the later. I can then add in “question begging explanations” for the BOA and Ancient characteristics of the BOA to lessen the problem (but not do away with it).
As I have made clear here, the above is how I weigh the data. It is IMO a strong case for the divinity of the CoJCoLDS. But, to the extent God desires us to possess “certitude” (whether we call it sure knowledge, fixed faith, or absence of nagging doubts), I think he has given this to me through my testimony.
Finally, I recognize two things which leads to an additional way in which I feel I should interact with folks outside my faith (and to some extent with those who are doubting the faith we share). One is that the way the data is aligned for me is something that I think is solid and necessary, but it is not absolutely necessary. When we arrange data there is some judgment involved in the arrangement. We can forcibly apply different judgments and explore different perspectives, but such a process cannot be exhaustive such that we can or should say there is no honest way to know the facts I know and not be a LDS. Two is the fact that my testimony is subjective truth. The Bible IMO tells me that evidentiary weight of my testimony for me is and should be great (even if it doesn’t need to be). The evidentiary weight of my testimony for others with respect to their being/becoming a LDS is much smaller. In light of 1 and 2, I claim that I have sufficient certitude AND YET to say things like, “there is no honest way to know the facts I know and not be a LDS” is to deny that we “see through a glass darkly.”
2. I once had a dialogue with some Catholic person that resulted in them recommending the book, Faith and Certitude. I read and enjoyed it. I believe part of my recognition that I possess “Certitude” comes from reading that book. I can say the BOA is a big problem. I can say simple things like, “10000 difficulties do not a doubt make” or I can say more complex things like #1. The Catholic who shared with me this book had a message for me. It was that the fixity and certitude the Catholic has because there are irreformable truths is of immense value.
Cont…

TOm said...

3. I find the whole idea that we cannot know what is infallible in Catholic Tradition/Doctrine to wipe out volumes of the certitude Catholics invite me to have when they suggest that I become Catholic. I do not believe that solemnizing homosexual relation through marriage (sealing in LDS speak) is the path that the world and the church should follow and/or should have followed (“should have” being a verb option because society is absolutely on this path and there is a least some elements within both our churches that are moving with society down this path). I think it possible that a time will come when God will know that more folks will be saved by the gospel because teachings in this area change than if they stayed the same. The argument here is VERY similar to the divorce/remarriage/Eucharist argument made by theologians defending Pope Francis. LDS do not have a concept of mortal sin in the way Catholics do IMO &&& we could be wrong “if there are any errors they are the errors of men not of God.” (also remember “eternal punishment” = “God’s punishment”). But, if Catholics can change “divorce/remarriage/Eucharist”, if Pope Francis can make overtures to changing doctrines on same sex relationships, if the fixed teaching on the death penalty was a mistake for 2000 years, …; I do not think there is much certitude for the Catholic (but 10 years ago I thought there was). Maybe the novus ordo mass does not Transubstantiate the host or maybe the promise to “never leave you” embraced by the Catholic Church as evidence she is God’s church NEVER meant that there could be no apostasy requiring a restoration through Joseph Smith.
I consider certitude / fixity to be attractive (attractive in that it witnesses to truth not in that it appeals to “itchy ears”). This certitude / fixity is an aspect of conservative religion. It is vanishing from Pope Francis’ Church.
As I weigh evidence, the Catholic should have no certitude that the promise to “never leave you” means that God is/was with the Catholic Church as all Catholic’s claimed 10 years ago, and thus they should consider the possibility that Joseph Smith is who LDS claim him to be. The Catholic who believes Vatican II had ANYTHING to say about truth has already embraced a view of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church) that would have IMO been called heresy a century before Vatican II. All of the Ultra-Trad Catholics reject the teaching on delayed ensoulment present in the Catechism of Trent (though few know this).
If I were Catholic and I KNEW that the Eucharist was uniquely Transubstantiated by the Catholic priest because I could SUBJECTIVELY FEEL this when I partook, I would still possess certitude. But this would be a certitude born of subjective evidence. I might also embrace a much weaker (as compared to pre-Vatican II or pre-Francis) way of aligning data that supported my certitude, but this objective evidence wouldn’t be what it was before.
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

I have another obnoxious comment. I will suggest Pope Francis is like Augustine/Aquinas, so this is a recommendation to not read!
I will also suggest that Vatican II is not quite the anomaly that Ultra-Trad’s suggest it is. I think it likely that the tumult in the church after Nicea was WORSE. The Catholic can take solace in this and say “this too shall pass,” but as a LDS I say that Nicea was innovation like Vatican II. For my harsh LDS take keep reading.
I can see Eusebius of Caesarea, not Eusebius of Nicomedia, (like Cardinal Ratsinger/ Bishop Bernard Fellay) saying “homoousian like a human father and son are homoousian” (just a pastoral council the problem is “the spirit of Vatican II”). I can see Athanasius (like Pope Benidict XVI or Cardinal Levada) saying those who hold these views on homoousian are our brothers, “not arianomaniacs.” (like some words said by Levada during the effort to re-integrate the SSPX). In a century nobody in the church or the world believed as Eusebius did. Augustine/Aquinas (like Pope Francis) solidified the neo-modalism Catholics embrace today and modern Catholics call Eusebius of C’s view neo-Arian (In 2120 the view of Pope Benidict XVI will be called neo-UltraTradism. Pope Francis lacks the clarity and rigor of Augustine / Aquinas, but they were not the Pope and Pope Francis has cogent thinkers defending him. The “ultra-Trad” is the view that Pope Francis seeks to purge and will purge if he wins and Vatican II will be called an Ecumenical Council not “just a pastoral” council). And, the faith is changed IMO.
The big difference between Nicea and Vatican II is that the post Nicea machinations are shrouded in history, purged from the record, and have no defenders anymore.
I could draw a similar parallel for Vatican I and Vatican II. The modern Catholic would point to Cardinal Newman’s view (from the outside of Vatican I) as a LDS I would say Ignaz von Döllinger is the Newman counter argument (Newman like Ratzinger/Benedict would have duel roll of defender of orthodoxy and recognition of strength in the arguments of those who reject it). Dolinger was acknowledge as maybe the preeminent church historian and Newman was a nobody. Today few know Dolinger and the Old Catholic Church (I attended a mass with them 15 years ago they are still around, but they do not offer cogent arguments like Dollinger, who never joined them). If the Old Catholics maintained Dolinger’s intellectual rigor I think we would have much more about the machinations that resulted in Papal Infallibility. If there were Old Catholic apologists there would be writings about how the doctrine was not properly defined/sealed, Vatican I is the longest council EVERY and was only closed in 1960, the Franco-Prussian war is the ONLY reason Catholics believe in the innovation that is “Papal infallibility,” and who knows what Dollinger and a dozen 1870-1920 thinkers would have produced (especially if they didn’t have wars and … to worry about like their post Vatican II thinkers).
So, it is my opinion that the Vatican II deniers don’t look a lot different than Vatican I or Nicea deniers regardless of how cogent their arguments appear today. The Vatican II deniers are correct IMO, Vatican II was not a council sealed by the Holy Spirit and guarded from both error and innovation, but neither was Vatican I or Nicea.
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Good morning Tom,

You posted some very interesting reflections earlier today—much to digest. Before I undertake a second reading of your material, I have some questions for you:

1. Is this Faith and Certitude the one that you read?

2. You wrote:

==I do not believe that solemnizing homosexual relation through marriage (sealing in LDS speak) is the path that the world and the church should follow and/or should have followed (“should have” being a verb option because society is absolutely on this path and there is a least some elements within both our churches that are moving with society down this path).==

The above seems a bit at odds with what immediately followed from your pen:

==I think it possible that a time will come when God will know that more folks will be saved by the gospel because teachings in this area change than if they stayed the same.==

How does God’s omniscience ‘fit’ into the above?

Are you leaning towards the view that homosexuality is a ‘social' issue rather than 'moral' doctrine?


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

David,
Yes that is the book that I remember.
Concerning same-sex marriage…
What I currently think is …
1. Those who have same-sex attraction have more of the DSM-5 difficulties than those who do not. After the change to the DSM (which I do believe was more political than scientific) removing same-sex attraction as a problem, the politically correct way of explaining this is that societal pressures result in these difficulties. I do not believe there is enough data to prove this and I think having same-sex attraction even when non-stigmatized will lead to difficulties (which is also not provable).
2. Today in our “sex is for fun” culture that permeates the world and all churches, the restrictions on same-sex acts are difficult or impossible to square with the shared knowledge everyone has. This means that most of the time being told there is no godly way to embrace ones sexual desires results in the rejection of God’s ways, not the subjugations of ones desires to God’s laws.
3. Religious folks failed when they did two things. One thing is they allowed sex is for fun, selling products, entertainment, … to win the day; only trying to hold the line that fornication is for marriage only (but still fun and having kids is only of some importance). Two they demonized those with same sex attractions like they are their sinful desires and my sinful desires are not who I am. If you are evil for having same-sex attraction even if you control it, that is about who you are not about the sins that we all fall into.

If I could go back in time with 50 brilliant influencers, perhaps we could change things. We could teach that sex is first and foremost about two things, procreation and the establishment of a bond for the raising of children. It is not for fun and surely not for entertainment or selling products or …. Those with same sex attraction are no different than those with Asperger’s syndrome (now called “being on the spectrum.”) Their brain works different, they are not evil. But like those with Asperger’s happiness is best achieved through making choices to interact healthily within a society where your Asperger’s is not common. I think if society viewed sex differently an analogous message for those with SSA could be to attempt to interact with the majority of society on their terms, not yours.
The only way the above message could be heard today is if God spoke it loudly and clearly, and that is not how God speaks (plus fewer and fewer folks are listening).

So, my position is that if things continue as they have been, in the year 2120 it is possible that a church could choose 2 paths. Path one says that God designed us to enter into opposite sex relationships, to have and to raise children. In this scenario everyone sins, everyone falls short of God’s plan, but perhaps xx% embrace God and go home to Him. Path two says that God loves us and designed us to enter into healthy committed relationships, everyone falls short of God’s plan, but perhaps xx% +y% embrace God and go home to Him.
The analogy to Path 2 is that the law of “consecration / united order” is the higher law. The law of “tithing” is the lower law.
I do not advocate for path 2. I merely see it as something that might happen.
I believe sex outside of divinely sanctioned marriage is a moral issue, and I believe in 2121 those who die in same sex marriages will know something most deny today (and may deny or not know then). But it is possible that more folks will embrace God because they were not pushed away be the “united order” and instead only asked to tithe. I believe all sin stains the soul, but Christ covers sin we know about and sin we don’t if we embrace Him. I am not advocating change, I am just saying God may do whatever God decides to do.
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

To all,

I found the following web article—published this morning—to be quite germane to the current ongoing discussions of this thread:

Cardinal Zen: In Vatican II, Catholics hear 'real voice of the Holy Spirit'


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

Hello!
Cardinal Zen’s words express what I thought was “the Catholic” position on Vatican II in 2006 (which is when he became a cardinal). This view was taught me by Catholic Answer and Jimmy Akin. This view seemed to be the view held by Pope Benidict XVI and Pope John Paul II. This was the view of Vatican II and Catholicism that I called the “strongest” view of Catholicism in 2006. When I judged this view in 2006 my strongest criticism was that it could not explain the Book of Mormon or the millions of testimonies of the Book of Mormon well enough. In addition to this failing IMO there was still the idea that the Newman development theory was insufficient to explain many CHANGES. In 2007 “The Hope for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was IMO a “spirit of Vatican II” document that evidenced a willingness to abandon sound theological principles in favor of feel good doctrines. I also thought the view that emerged many decades after Nicea of the Trinity MAYBE could not be righted with a valid development understanding. I also …, but then Pope Francis became the Pope. And little things that I could perhaps explain as I believe Jimmy Akin or Cardinal Zen would explain, became ruptures with Tradition evidencing Jimmy Akin and Cardinal Zen did not (in 2006) understand.
I remember hearing Jimmy Akin struggle to explain how some prominent Cardinal (or Cardinals) were advocating for different views on divorce, remarriage, mortal sin (of fornication), and receiving the Eucharist. It was clear to me that he “feared” that this view would “win.” To me this meant that the common message I heard from him that there are many “spirit of Vatican II” (I am not sure if those are his words, I know they are not mine) prelates running around, but this view would not win the day; MIGHT be challenged by the decision that he found to be a CHANGE in doctrine. He paved the way for him being able to consistently continue being Catholic if the decisions went the way he feared, but he made it clear that it was not decided yet and maybe it would just be a prominent view, but one rejected by Tradition as it should be.
To the extent that the 2006 view, the Catholic Answer’s view, the Jimmy Akin view, the Cardinal Zen view, … of Vatican II is “the view” of Vatican II embraced by Catholicism; I have NO PROBLEM with Vatican II. I remember asking you about this before 2006 and you speaking positively about Vatican II. I considered my SSPX friend’s view of Vatican II in 2006 to be problematic and not the strongest way of advocating for Catholic truth claims.
Cont…

TOm said...

But, Pope Francis is the Pope. He does not evidence what Cardinal Zen invites us to believe about Vatican II. The CCC changing and the acceptance of this change by all prelates who maintain communion with the Pope is IMO a clear exercise of the “ordinary universal magisterium” and simultaneously teaches that the “ordinary universal magisterium” was wrong in the past.
Vatican II CAN be integrated into Catholicism without the “hermeneutic of rupture,” but that is not what is happening. In 2006 Jimmy Akin (and I expect Dave Armstrong) lamented the way some Priests and perhaps Bishops carried out Vatican II’s teachings with a “hermeneutic of rupture,” (Cardinal Zen’s words, not theirs in my recollection), but it was clear that Benidict XVI cared about such things and elevated Cardinal Zen. Today, the head of the Catholic Church evidences to me that he is happy he can carry out changes that make Catholicism a more loving religion. He points to Vatican II and a “hermeneutic of rupture” to make these changes.
Cardinal Zen may represent the correct and ultimately embraced view of Vatican II, but I do not believe Pope Francis cares what Cardinal Zen might say about a “hermeneutic of rupture.” If in 2120 Vatican II is viewed by Catholic prelates as Cardinal Zen says it should be, then intelligent Catholics from 2006 or 1006 or 506 would be able to look down from Heaven and say “there were some rough patches, but Vatican II was a wonderful 21st EC of my Church (the Church).” If the “hermeneutic of rupture” prevails these intelligent Catholics from 1006 and 506 together with Rory (today) and Pope Clarence Kelly the Fifth (Pope CKV, will succeed Pope CKIV in 2108 and will head the SSPV Catholic Church) will say, Vatican II was not really an EC and it lead to the falling away of 90%+ of 21st Century Catholics.
Rory and the SSPX might not agree with me, but my position has been that there is nothing that prevents the reading of Vatican II as a council in the Tradition of the Catholic Church. But if I am wrong and it impossible to embrace Vatican II as a valid council and Vatican II necessarily (of logical necessity) leads to Pope Francis and the “hermeneutic of rupture” then Vatican II created a schism where 90%+ of the “faithful” left the Catholic faith. Alternatively it might not be logically necessary that Vatican II be read with the “hermeneutic of rupture” (this is my claim), but 90%+ of Catholics and Catholic prelates leave the Catholic faith because they view Vatican II as encouraging/allowing a “hermeneutic of rupture.” Either way Vatican II will have been a mistake.
I do not KNOW what will happen, but it sure seems Pope Francis is a “hermeneutic of rupture” guy and unless something changes the 2120 folks who embrace Vatican II will be “hermeneutic of rupture” folks.
Charity, TOm

leeseykay said...

Hi Tom.

Thanks for your well pondered reflections. I would like to back up to your post on July 27 where you write the following:

I once had a dialogue with some Catholic person that resulted in them recommending the book, Faith and Certitude. I read and enjoyed it. I believe part of my recognition that I possess “Certitude” comes from reading that book. I can say the BOA is a big problem. I can say simple things like, “10000 difficulties do not a doubt make” or I can say more complex things like #1. The Catholic who shared with me this book had a message for me. It was that the fixity and certitude the Catholic has because there are irreformable truths is of immense value.

I left your bolded reference to the title of Fr. Dubay's book. I would like to focus on what you understood as the message from your Catholic acquaintance who shared this book with you. That is of course my bold.

Are Catholics unique in this respect? Name the religious body that admits that every belief they proclaim to be true is perhaps untrue. It might be to a lesser degree, but religious bodies and most individuals believe in infallibility.

I am not sure why you wrote the following. It might be in response to Dave suggesting it is not simple to know if a teaching is certainly infallible:

I find the whole idea that we cannot know what is infallible in Catholic Tradition/Doctrine to wipe out volumes of the certitude Catholics invite me to have when they suggest that I become Catholic.

I agree completely with that! I hold that most infallible teachings of the Catholic Church are easily identified. They have been growing as the Bride of Christ comes closer and closer to her nuptials. Legitimate developments can never be known to be infallible until they are finally infallibly defined. I think your concern would be well taken, except that we can know what is with certainty infallibly defined.

Thanks for your consideration, tOM and daVE. hEH.

Rory

leeseykay said...

Hey again Tom.

Tom
"But, if Catholics can change “divorce/remarriage/Eucharist”, if Pope Francis can make overtures to changing doctrines on same sex relationships, if the fixed teaching on the death penalty was a mistake for 2000 years, …; I do not think there is much certitude for the Catholic (but 10 years ago I thought there was). Maybe the novus ordo mass does not Transubstantiate the host..."

Rory
If Pope Francis can correctly change those things, he has proven that the Catholic Church is false now, and was almost certainly never the one true church. If the things Francis wants to change are correct changes, he is not pope, and neither was Peter.

It would seem that if Francis is pope as many believe, especially non-Catholics, he can only change those things incorrectly. The pope truly has no authority to change those teachings because if he could successfully prove that past teachings were in error, he not only stops being the pope, he never was the pope!

The papacy depends upon preserving the faith received from the Apostles. We cannot say that the Apostles got it right, and then the whole Church went off the rails until Vatican II corrects it. That is what Francis would like to do, obviously. Such a scenario would provide a far more certain apostasy theory for Restorationists than anything the greatest LDS minds have ever proposed.

Who would need to argue about homoousion or Constantine building churches or hellenism? The Catholic Church loses all credibility if she could say that sodomy was one of four sins that cried to heaven for vengeance for 1,990 only to discover that sodomy has always been a holy and spiritually gifted way of expressing the divine love.

I wanted also to comment on your apparent thought that Traditionalists doubt that the Novus Ordo does not provide a valid consecration. I hold that it does so. I wish it did not because there would be no sacrilege if the form of words were defective. That is why Traditionalists will always genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament. One wonders why Francis will not genuflect. He throws himself at the feet of African politicians and kisses their feet. He blasphemously washes the feet of members of other religions as well as women who are supposed to represent the twelve apostles. If one can arduously kneel for those, it is a wonder that he will not merely genuflect on one knee for Jesus Christ. It is nearly impossible for me to believe that Francis believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. But I do. Even in Novus Ordo churches.

Even if he believes, here is further evidence that Pope Francis does not have a Catholic understanding of many traditional customs and acts that are rooted in veneration for the Blessed Sacrament. He does not know how to act as pope, maybe this is because he does not know what to believe?

Rory

leeseykay said...

Oh...I forgot to link the video. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69jIwHNbZTc

Rory

leeseykay said...

I have a double negative above which should be single:

"I wanted also to comment on your apparent thought that Traditionalists doubt that the Novus Ordo does not provide a valid consecration. I hold that it does so."

It should read as follows:

"I wanted also to comment on your apparent thought that Traditionalists doubt that the Novus Ordo provides a valid consecration. I hold that it does so."

This was confusing:

"It is nearly impossible for me to believe that Francis believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. But I do. Even in Novus Ordo churches."

One could get the impression that while it is nearly impossible, I do believe that Francis has faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When I said "But I do." I meant that I believe in the Real Presence in the Novus Ordo.

The thing is, they cut out all of the reverent piety that follows from this belief, emphasize that it is a dinner. It is not surprising if priests and bishops are as negatively affected by a vaild, but woefully defective liturgy. Repeated liturgical acts of piety help to build faith in something that is the most stupendously difficult thing to believe. Now they have to believe while abandoning an atmosphere of the most exalted ceremony? Like Catholics in the pew, from one generation to the next, in the Novus Ordo, the priests begin to disbelieve. Of course, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

Rory

TOm said...

Hello Rory!
In my MIND there are two things that have certainly happened and that I link to the recommendation of this Father Dubay’s book. One is acknowledging that the ancient BOM authors and the foundational LDS prophet acknowledged that while God is perfect, “mistakes of men” are possible even in scripture. To this the Catholic responds that they have certitude with respect to doctrine because it is infallibly guarded by the Church. The other is me acknowledging that I weigh objective evidence and conclude that the CoJCoLDS is God’s Church, but that there are strengths for the Catholic position and weaknesses for the LDS position. I am not a perfect evidence evaluating being. To which I have definitely had Catholics suggest to me that reason simply demands that the Catholic Church is God’s Church.
LDS boldly claim that “this is the last dispensation.” There is no wavering in any official LDS communication on this truth. Linked to this of course is that the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of ancient Christianity combined with God’s revelation for this the final dispensation. Where I think LDS leaders acknowledge implicitly and occasionally explicitly the possibility of error is in theological reflection/definition.
I would suggest that the statement, “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity” much celebrated in Protestant circles, occasionally celebrated within Catholic circles (it is usually attributed to Augustine, but this is not correct) is an acknowledgement that someone in ones fellowship embraces things that are “perhaps untrue.”
Concerning “knowing the infallibly taught things,” I think it is likely that there is a standard that can be consistently applied. I am not sure what it is. I am sure that whoever defines and holds that standard is in the minority of Catholics. Many very intelligent Vatican II deniers point to Papal encyclicals as infallible statements. The question of female ordination to the priesthood will create difficulties for many definitions.
My understanding of your definition is that portions of an EC sealed with Papal authority are infallible and that there have been two exercises of Papal Infallibility outside an EC. Those two are both Marian doctrines. To this definition I would throw a few difficulties (female ordination, salvation of unbaptized infants, and two hypostasis). If I was hell bent on a definition of infallibility, I would respond. 1. Female Ordination might happen, we are UNCERTAIN. 2. Unbaptized infants (and aborted babies) if they die are in hell for eternity, we are CERTAIN. 3. The Father and Son are two hypostasis. I am unsure if you are willing to allow that the question of “female ordination” is undecided or if you are comfortable with knowing that unbaptized infants are in hell (maybe limbo which is part of hell, but still hell). I suspect you are quite certain that the Father and Son are two hypostasis.
I really see these difficulties this way, but perhaps I am missing something. I will acknowledge that I get confused when it comes to things that are acts of the council and things that are … of the council, and ??? I can see how some might call things that Doctors of the Church might consider “de fide” are really science questions like geocentrism and fetal animation. But, at the end of the day I do not find enough “get out of jail free” cards.
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

Rory said:
Such a scenario would provide a far more certain apostasy theory for Restorationists than anything the greatest LDS minds have ever proposed.
TOm:
Well, my position is that “if Francis is Pope” and he changed these things, then the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be.
I have long said:
1. Perhaps Newman’s theory is not Catholic, then the Catholic Church is not God’s Church.
2. Perhaps Newman’s theory CANNOT explain the move from Father and subordinate being the Son to homoousian in the numeric sense. Maybe it CANNOT explain many other things. Then the Catholic Church Is not God’s Church.
The above two things are not as CLEAR as the changes of Pope Francis. They are shrouded in history and VOLUMES of data and documents. Pope Francis is modern and easier to explain.
Now as to your position:
I understand why Jews didn’t embrace Christ the suffering servant. I understand why some Jehovah’s Witnesses did not move beyond failed second coming teachings. I understand why some LDS did not move past the BOM as a history of ALL of North and South America. I also understand why you do not move past failed expectations for the Pope and the Catholic Church.
I (we) judge that the Jews were wrong. I (we- if you choose to pronounce judgment) judge the JW were right. I judge the LDS were wrong. And I judge (if/when I choose to pronounce judgment) you are wrong.
I have seen one who embraced the SSPX narrative decide that he must become a Sedavacantist, but he maintains he is Catholic (more Catholic than the “Pope.”). I have seen Pope Francis drive folks to the SSPX or to Sedavacantism. My question is when do you become a “restorationist in waiting.” Is it 2 “popes” like Pope Francis? Is it 100 years of Vatican II Catholicism? Is it when the SSPX has only 20 priests and 2000 laity? What would it need to be?
I do not know how to answer that question for myself. I can offer that if the CoJCoLDS began to emphasize our personal responsibility and declared that it is our repentance and repair/recompense for our sins that prevents our living an eternity in hell not Christ’s atonement, I would ceased to be a LDS. I already know that I can hold a big problem with the origins of the BOA on my shelf, and I am sure I could weather other similar storms.
I think it very unlikely that if I had remained Catholic, became an educated Catholic, and then experienced Pope Francis; that I would be a Pope Francis defender like Dave A. I still think before Pope Francis I would be a Vatican II defender like Cardinal Zen. But I cannot say what would happen if my LDS friend suggested maybe there is a restoration in response to Pope Francis. I don’t think that would be an obvious lifeline.
Charity, TOm
P.S. I didn’t actually think that you thought the NO mass did not Transubstantiate. I KNOW the Catholic Church declared those who hold Anglican orders were unable to Transubstantiate. I alignment with my above question, when is it time for those Catholics who are more Catholic than the Pope to say that the host is not validly consecrated? At least part of the Anglican judgment seems to have been union with Rome / Papacy which was lacking.
P.S.S. I did watch the video.

leeseykay said...

If I am understanding you correctly, we are in almost perfect accord regarding the pontificate of Pope Francis. I appreciate your curiosity about what could possibly trigger a loss of faith that the Catholic Church is true:

I have seen one who embraced the SSPX narrative decide that he must become a Sedavacantist, but he maintains he is Catholic (more Catholic than the “Pope.”). I have seen Pope Francis drive folks to the SSPX or to Sedavacantism. My question is when do you become a “restorationist in waiting.” Is it 2 “popes” like Pope Francis? Is it 100 years of Vatican II Catholicism? Is it when the SSPX has only 20 priests and 2000 laity? What would it need to be?

1) Sedevacantism--Abp. Marcel Lefebvre would not allow sedevacantists in his seminary, and had dismissed seminarians and instructors who had adopted the sedevacantist position. But such actions were not based on an absolute conviction that Paul VI, or John Paul II were without a doubt true popes. His position was that one may have personal doubts about a presumably reigning, but that not even an archbishop had the competence to make that judgment:

"He [Lefebvre] said more than once about these popes - about Paul VI in 1976, and about John Paul II, after the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 - that he did not exclude the possibility that these popes were not popes, that one day the Church will have to examine their situation...This supposes that he did not feel that he possessed sufficient knowledge of the pertinent facts nor the necessary power for making such a judgment."

---True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Errors, STAS Editions, 2015, by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, p. 11

This expresses my position regarding the post-Vatican II popes including John XXIII. I do not have the necessary authority, or the necessary knowledge.

I trust that your friend is a well-meaning Catholic. I have to wonder though, do you suppose he assumes that today's priests of the Society of St. Pius X are all 100% certain that Francis is pope? I wrote to a priest I admire in the last year or two about this question and I was not censured for my doubts about Jorge Bergoglio. I was advised to be patient, Abp. Lefebvre being an example.

---to be continued

leeseykay said...

2) Restorationist-In-Waiting

For me to become a restorationist-in-waiting, I would need to be a convinced sedevacantist who perceived that because of the crisis in the Church, all ordinary mechanisms for finding a successor of Peter is lost. For all I know, many sedevacantists are also restorationists-in-waiting.

Heaven gave today's faithful Catholics prophetic utterances accompanied by miracles. We hear the warnings about the errors of Russia and the decay and corruption of the Church that should follow if the popes that nobody disputes, refused to obey Our Lady's wishes regarding Russia. They refused. And now when we have a communist pope taking bribes from Communist China to allow true Catholics in China to be persecuted to death, is it time for today's faithful Catholic s to doubt the claims of the Catholic faith? We who listened to the Fatima message believed it when we heard about it. Are we going to doubt the Church, when we see the message come true before our eyes?

Prophesies about her own "diabolical disorientation" have been approved by the Church. Given the message of our Lady of Fatima, I might have cause for doubt, if the popes had consecrated Russia and then this happened. But the Blessed Mother told Sr. Lucia that the pope wouldn't do it until it was "late". We are seeing prophecy fulfilled and acting like it is terrible. God is as near as ever. And Our Lady promised, "in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph".

I do not know if the papacy needs restored or not. If it needs restored, I will be first in line as a restorationist-in-waiting. For now, I believe in the possibility we have a pope, and if not, a possible ordinary mechanism for finding one. Lacking that, I await Heaven's sure response. We still need a pope with faithful bishops around the world to consecrate Russia.

Rory

leeseykay said...

I hope I answered your question Tom.

I assumed that my being a "restorationist-in-waiting"(hereafter, RIW)would involve my waiting for the Catholic Church to be restored.

I now realize that it is possible that you were asking what it might take for me to admit that the Catholic Church before Vatican II was also false. I cannot imagine what could cause that. You ask if 100 years of crisis and chaos would be enough? No. Priests and bishops gone? No. Another Francis? No.

If I had a vision telling me that the Church that made the martyrs, the confessors, the virgins, the doctors, and all the saints was false, I could be deceived through self-pride. God helping me, I would never believe that. It is an outrageous proposition. My understanding of the glorious history of the Roman Catholic Church through 20 centuries would have to be ripped away from me.

I know from theology that I can lose my faith. St. Paul was concerned about his own possible reprobation. He practiced mortification and penance as a medicine against such a possibility. But unless the light of grace and right reason leaves me because I abuse it, I can think of no other way that I might deny the Catholic faith.

If monstrous space aliens captured me and were mean to me, it could make me doubt the natural law. Would God make a race of mean monsters? But that would not make me an RIW, but maybe an atheist. I think not though. I think I would still cry out with faith and hope the alleluia verse from today's Mass for the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost:

"Rescue me, O my God from mine enemies: and from them that rise up against me, deliver me. Alleluia."

Rory

leeseykay said...

Tom
P.S. I didn’t actually think that you thought the NO mass did not Transubstantiate. I KNOW the Catholic Church declared those who hold Anglican orders were unable to Transubstantiate. I alignment with my above question, when is it time for those Catholics who are more Catholic than the Pope to say that the host is not validly consecrated? At least part of the Anglican judgment seems to have been union with Rome / Papacy which was lacking.
P.S.S. I did watch the video.

Rory
The reason Anglicans cannot as you put it, "transubstantiate" is that for a too lengthy period of time, Anglicans changed to a defective form for the sacrament of Holy Orders. This occurred early on during the reign of Queen Elizabeth until they ran out of bishops. Without a bishop, you can use the right form and it is meaningless. The Eastern Orthodox "transubstantiate" because they have holy orders, although they have been known to not be in union with Rome for a millenium.

For a brief but clear analysis of why Leo XII was able to easily determine that Anglican orders were null and void see this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The problem wasn't disunion with Rome. The problem was that they monkeyed around with the words very early on after the death of King Henry VIII.

The article:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm

I am glad you watched the video.

Rory

TOm said...

Hello Rory,
The perspective on not knowing if the Pope is the Pope, but assuming he is was interesting. I believe I heard someone express this when they said “Sedavacantism is a dead end,” or something like that. But, I think my understanding of it is better now.
Your first “Restorationist in waiting” response points to the Church prophesizing the difficulties She would have and finding it to be merely somewhat extraordinary that some Papal restoration could result. Because I am obnoxious, let me say that as Christians we believe the coming of Christ was prophesized within Judaism. We believe Ciaphus the head of the Jewish authority Prophesied in the New Testament. And yet the Tradition that emerged post Judaism was not what the majority of Jews thought the “restoration” would be and few or none of the Jewish authority embraced it. So prophesizing does not normalize the situation such that a restoration is part of the continuing status quo.
Your second “Restoration in waiting” response is a little more difficult to counter. I will suggest that there were surely Jewish groups who celebrated the miracles of Abraham’s time, the miracles of Moses time, the miracles of the Maccabees, and … They might claim that looking to a suffering servant rejected by Jews with authority and most Jews in general is no reason to reject Moses, Abraham, …. I think this comparison falls down a lot when one views the Apostasy as David shows many LDS did for many years (because St. Catherine of Siena and St. Francis of Assisi and … are not part of God’s work on the earth in this view, but Catholics believe Moses and Abraham are part of God’s work so their miracles are not hard to explain). I think it falls down less when one views the Apostasy as I have advocated for (in this blog a few months back). In my view there is no problem acknowledge that St. Catherine of Siena and St. Francis of Assisi are part of God’s work even though something needed to be restored in 1820/1830).
Thank you for educated me on the position of Anglican orders. I should have but FAILED to draw the parallel to Easter Orthodoxy.
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hello Rory and Tom,

I have been extraordinarily busy since last Friday, with little time left over for the internet and AF. Finally, life is back to ‘normal’ for this beachbum (apart from the Covid19 pandemic). Shall start sharing some of my thoughts on the more recent comments, beginning with Tom’s July 29th posts—Tom wrote:

==Cardinal Zen’s words express what I thought was “the Catholic” position on Vatican II in 2006 (which is when he became a cardinal). This view was taught me by Catholic Answer and Jimmy Akin.==

If memory servers me correctly, Cardinal Zen’s understanding was held by every conservative Catholic apologist I had read before Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the elected Pope.

== This view seemed to be the view held by Pope Benidict XVI and Pope John Paul II.==

Agreed.

== This was the view of Vatican II and Catholicism that I called the “strongest” view of Catholicism in 2006.==

Mine as well.

==In addition to this failing IMO there was still the idea that the Newman development theory was insufficient to explain many CHANGES. In 2007 “The Hope for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was IMO a “spirit of Vatican II” document that evidenced a willingness to abandon sound theological principles in favor of feel good doctrines.==

Interesting take. Personally, I did not have too much trouble fitting the, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized" into Newman's theory of development. As you probably remember, we had some dialogue in this issue in the following AF thread:

Infant salvation and the Catholic tradition

==I also thought the view that emerged many decades after Nicea of the Trinity MAYBE could not be righted with a valid development understanding.==

Could you delineate “the view that emerged many decades after Nicea of the Trinity” you have in mind?

Further, do you still believe that this view, “MAYBE could not be righted with a valid development understanding”?

Much more to discuss, but feel it best to wait for response/s to the above, before continuing.


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

Hello David (and Rory)!
I am tired of Covid19, but the truth is I think I can point to more positives for me as an individual than negatives. Hope you stay safe and virus free.
Infant Baptism:
It seems to me the only person who had early anticipation for the salvation of infants who die without baptism was Pelagius. After our conversation, a guy who plays a theologian on the Internet (plays well) suggested that it is fine for little old lady’s to have hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism. And even theologians can hope for this. But to produce theology or pseudo-theology that advocates for this hope is not in alignment with how theology is done. To the extent that salvation = the beatific vision, Catholic Tradition has been consistent and has spoken on the fate of unbaptized infants too. Limbo or something akin to it is solid theological speculation, but the beatific vision for them is not good theology. Perhaps teaching that hope can exist where theology is lacking is fine theology, but I don’t think that was the intent of the 2007 document.
I cannot remember if I have ever asked here if Ecumenical Councils are infallible when understood as they were originally understood by the Father’s at the council OR if the protection of infallibility extends to the words produced by the council, but future understanding can significantly change what the original intent of the Father’s was. To me the words of Nicea precluded the typical Trinitarian formula in that it is anathema to say the Father and the Son are two “hypostasis,” but the original intent is fine because they were trying to deny being different –ousia when they said this. The words of Florence and Lyons council do not preclude a “baptism of hope” saving infants, but the original intent was that baptism removes original sin and infants who die having committee no sins (because they die in the womb or in childbirth or before they can commit sin) but have ONLY original sin, go to hell. The non-EC Council of Orange is even clearer.
Trinity:
To the extent that “subordinationism was pre-Nicea orthodoxy” and that “homoousian in the numeric sense” not to mention the many anti-subordinationist concepts present in Catholic thought after the 4th century, Newman’s development might not work. How does a universal view of subordination become the “co-equal” formation in the Athanasian creed. (I remember from long ago discussions that the Athanasian Creed is not an infallible document, but the view of homoousian in the numeric sense and the coequal formulation seem to have likely been codified infallibly somewhere (and certainly are part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium). In any case that was the lift I was saying Newman MIGHT not be able to make with respect to the Trinity.

cont...

TOm said...

I have been and continue to be skeptical that someone without commitment to the Catholic Church should believe that Newman’s 7 marks of a true development provide a means to show that all the development (change) is in alignment with Newman’s premise. I have been and continue to be skeptical that someone without commitment to the Catholic Church should believe that Newman’s theory was adequately Catholic when it swept across the Catholic faith (this was Orestas Bronson’s view that Newman’s was a Protestant theory and should be condemned). Also, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think a conservative read of Vatican II is possible and perhaps this results in Vatican II being a 21st EC, but if Vatican II by logical necessity, (or in actual fact but not necessarily), leads to the change of the faith Pope Francis argues for at every turn; the best way to view the Catholic Church is that Vatican II was not an EC. Similarly, I will say that Vatican II, “the Newman Council” could by logical necessity derive from the acceptance of Newman’s theory (or in actual fact but not necessarily lead/derive from the acceptance of Newman’s theory). And if Vatican II is destroying Traditional Catholicism, Newman’s theory does not / should not escape blame.

Of course, my position is that God did not preserve Tradition infallibly through Councils and Popes. That Newman’s theory is necessary to explain the CHANGE that is evident, but it is just a way to paint over an absence of preservation of Tradition.
I believe that Newman’s theory destroys the idea that Protestants can embrace CHANGED concepts of the Trinity as perfect and necessary for salvation while rejecting the authority that defined these changes. Or that Protestants can reject the authority that developed/changed over the same time and with the same methods that gave us the Trinity (these men were perfect in defining the Trinity, but all wet in defining the authority). So Newman’s apologetic proves Protestantism is a faulty foundation.
But, I do not see miraculous consistency or even consistency that we can clearly recognize has the 7 marks Newman speaks about (and I see a call for consistency that Newman rejects maybe too much as Orestas Bronson said). I see mostly good intelligent men doing a mostly good intelligent job preserving the “faith once delivered.”
I further believe that Pope Francis does not have the same commitment to preserving Tradition and this is much easier to see in 100 or 1000 words rather than in 100 or 1000 books.


So, to say that Pope Francis is Catholic is to say that Catholicism merely thought there was something to preserving Tradition. It was really about the authority of the Pope (and almost every Pope before him didn’t know they could CHANGE things).
To say that Newman’s theory is not Catholic (Orestas Bronson) and preservation of Tradition is important is to deny the history of CHANGE. Some theory is necessary or Tradition is not real?
To say that Newman’s theory is Catholic is tough in light of some of the CHANGES and Newman’s attempts to define “Marks.“ And today, we know that Newman’s theory was a big part of the motivation that lead to and shaped Vatican II. And today, we know that Vatican II was a big part in the creation of Pope Francis. It seems clear that without Newman’s theory, there would be no Vatican II. Without Vatican II there would be no Pope Francis.

cont...

TOm said...

I guess the BEST view of Catholicism as True would be that Newman’s theory is good in principle, the difficulties I see are not unsolvable. Newman’s theory is not responsible for the post Vatican II problems with preserving Tradition that are obvious (and unsolvable). The problems instead are the product of men doing things that are not sealed by the infallible authority of the Catholic Church (and an example of when the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not absolutely infallible).
And, I should put down the problems I see with the origins of the BOA and pick up these Catholic problems. Currently this looks like a much bigger mess of difficulties than I presently hold as a LDS, but perhaps this is due to my pride or …

I also might mention (since I had to break this post up again), that I think unless I declare I am Catholic and Pope Francis is not Catholic and thus the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not functioning, I would be required to believe that the death penalty violates the inherent dignity of the human being. Were this a consistent Catholic and Biblical view I would have no problem with it because I consider it to be a very complex issue that could go either way. But the fact that this view condemns the consistent teaching in the Bible and Tradition is a problem. My understanding is that I could recognize that this view I choose to embrace “death penalty violates the inherent dignity” is not absolutely an infallibly defined truth, but I should not refuse to give intellectual assent to it and I should not publically speak of it as an error. This too would be messy.
Charity, TOm

P.S. Because I am obnoxious, I hope to revisit how rejecting Vatican II is like rejecting Vatican I (mostly with a link to a document from an EO scholar). I am not advocating that Vatican II should be accepted. I am suggesting that Vatican I is problematic like Vatican II and those who see the Vatican II problems should look, fine, and reject Vatican I also.

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

Thanks much for you quick response to my questions. You wrote:

==Infant Baptism:
It seems to me the only person who had early anticipation for the salvation of infants who die without baptism was Pelagius. After our conversation, a guy who plays a theologian on the Internet (plays well) suggested that it is fine for little old lady’s to have hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism. And even theologians can hope for this. But to produce theology or pseudo-theology that advocates for this hope is not in alignment with how theology is done.==

How “theology is done" within the Catholic tradition is in many instances a direct response to a teaching that is deemed ‘heretical'. I will provide two important examples: first, it took Arius' teaching that the Son was created/produced by the Father 'out of nothing' to convince 300+ bishops gathered at Nicea to produce the Nicene Creed. Prior to this various theologies existed as possible options. Second, it took the adamant rejection of the Apocrypha by the magisterial Reformers before the canon of Sacred Scripture was officially defined at Trent.

The issue of the atonement was determined in a different manner. The Catholic view—satisfaction theory—took centuries before it was even advanced as an option. If was first proposed by Anselm in the 12th century. Thomas Aquinas developed this theory in his Summa Theologica into what became the Catholic position, but it was not officially defined until Trent.

The point I am attempting to make is that the how “theology is done" within the Catholic tradition has taken different forms.

==To the extent that salvation = the beatific vision, Catholic Tradition has been consistent and has spoken on the fate of unbaptized infants too. Limbo or something akin to it is solid theological speculation, but the beatific vision for them is not good theology. Perhaps teaching that hope can exist where theology is lacking is fine theology, but I don’t think that was the intent of the 2007 document.==

Augustine’s adamant view on the fate of unbaptized infants was novel, and was never accepted by Greek speaking Christians—neither prior to, nor after the 1054 split. The advancement of limbo in the Scholastic period clearly softened Augustine’s view. With these aspects in mind, I personally do not see the view advanced in the 2007 document as some sort of ‘rupture’ of previous tradition.

==I cannot remember if I have ever asked here if Ecumenical Councils are infallible when understood as they were originally understood by the Father’s at the council OR if the protection of infallibility extends to the words produced by the council, but future understanding can significantly change what the original intent of the Father’s was.==

I do not recall that you have asked me this question in the past. But, it is an important question, and I do not recall reading any work that specifically addresses it.

==To me the words of Nicea precluded the typical Trinitarian formula in that it is anathema to say the Father and the Son are two “hypostasis,” but the original intent is fine because they were trying to deny being different –ousia when they said this.==

The Nicene Creed and the attached anathemas do not mention “two hypostasis”. The Greek, when translated correctly, informs us the Son was not of/from a different hypostasis/person or ousia/substance than that of the Father—i.e. the Son’s person and essence/nature comes from the Father alone.

See THIS THREAD for an extended treatment on this subject.

More tomorrow, the Lord willing…


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Typo correction: "If was first proposed by Anselm in the 12th century", should read,"It was first proposed by Anselm in the 12th century".

David Waltz said...

Hello again Tom,

Picking up from where I left off yesterday, I would like share some thoughts on the following you wrote:

==Trinity:
To the extent that “subordinationism was pre-Nicea orthodoxy” and that “homoousian in the numeric sense” not to mention the many anti-subordinationist concepts present in Catholic thought after the 4th century, Newman’s development might not work. How does a universal view of subordination become the “co-equal” formation in the Athanasian creed. (I remember from long ago discussions that the Athanasian Creed is not an infallible document, but the view of homoousian in the numeric sense and the coequal formulation seem to have likely been codified infallibly somewhere (and certainly are part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium). In any case that was the lift I was saying Newman MIGHT not be able to make with respect to the Trinity.==

A fair amount to unpack. First, I believe that the Nicene Creed and the attached anathemas retain an appropriate amount of subordinationism. The “One God” is the Father; the Son is not autotheos, and has his existence (person and essence) from the Father alone.

Second, “the many anti-subordinationist concepts present in Catholic thought after the 4th century” are ontological in nature, and do not eliminate etiologocial subordination (i.e. causality of the Son and HS).

Interestingly enough, a number of Protestant theologians are quite cognizant of this retained subordinationism in Catholic thought. One prime example was the famous Calvinist theologian B. B. Warfield, who wrote:

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>>Clearly Calvin's position did not seem a matter of course, when he first enunciated it. It roused opposition and created a party. But it did create a party: and that party was shortly the Reformed Churches, of which it became characteristic that they held and taught the self-existence of Christ as God and defended therefore the application to Him of the term αὐτόθεος; that is to say, in the doctrine of the Trinity they laid the stress upon the equality of the Persons sharing in the same essence, and thus set themselves with more or less absoluteness against all subordinationism in the explanation of the relations of the Persons to one another. When Calvin asserted, with the emphasis which he threw upon it, the self-existence of Christ, he unavoidably did three things. First and foremost, he declared the full and perfect deity of our Lord, in terms which could not be mistaken and could not be explained away. The term αὐτόθεος served the same purpose in this regard that the term ὁμοούσιος had served against the Arians and the term ὑπόστασις against the Sabellians. No minimizing conception of the deity of Christ could live in the face of the assertion of aseity or αὐτόθεότης of Him. This was Calvin's purpose in asserting aseity of Christ and it completely fulfilled itself in the event. In thus fulfilling itself, however, two further effects were unavoidably wrought by it. The inexpugnable opposition of subordinationists of all types was incurred: all who were for any reason or in any degree unable or unwilling to allow to Christ a deity in every respect equal to that of the Father were necessarily offended by the vindication to Him of the ultimate Divine quality of self-existence. And all those who, while prepared to allow true deity to Christ, yet were accustomed to think of the Trinitarian relations along the lines of the traditional Nicene orthodoxy, with its assertion of a certain subordination of the Son to the Father, at least in mode of subsistence, were thrown into more or less confusion of mind and compelled to resort to nice distinctions in order to reconcile the two apparently contradictory confessions of αὐτόθεότης and of θεός ἐκ θεοῦ of our Lord. It is not surprising, then, that the controversy roused by Caroli and carried on by Chaponneau and Courtois did not die out with their refutation; but prolonged itself through the years and has indeed come down even to our own day. Calvin's so-called innovation with regard to the Trinity has, in point of fact, been made the object of attack through three centuries, not only by Unitarians of all types, nor only by professed Subordinationists, but also by Athanasians, puzzled to adjust their confession of Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God" to the at least verbally contradictory assertion that in respect of His deity He is not of another but of Himself.>> (B. B. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”, in Calvin and Calvinism, volume V of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield – Baker Book House, 1981 reprint, pages 251, 252.)

The retention of causal subordinationism within the Catholic tradition suggests to me that we are looking at a refinement of Trinitarian thought, rather than a ‘rupture’.


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

Concerning theology and hope for unbaptized infant, basically the thinking goes:
1. Catholics must believe that to be saved you must have sanctifying grace.
2. The only revealed method for infants to receive sanctifying grace is baptism.

In the absence of revelation it is impossible to KNOW that there is not another method for infants to receive this sanctifying grace. But if the Catholic Church has “all truth” then God has chosen to NEVER mention another method. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that those who die with only original sin will be in hell. So, while it is logically possible that God saves infants (or some infants) who die without baptism, it is against God’s will to proclaim this. If the Catholic Church has “all truth,” God’s teachings are VERY CLEAR. All the world must be evangelized. All infants must be baptized expeditiously. The motivation to do this is that those who die without baptism will be in hell per all God has revealed.

For some Catholic theologians to suggest that we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, while true, goes against what God has revealed. It is thus a teaching that is in opposition to God’s will, again assuming Catholicism contains “all truth” and must only guard it from corruption. It is a corruption.
That is basically what I understood him to be saying.
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

And more responses…
On Nicea not condemning the idea that Father and Son are two hypostasis, I was not aware of the other translation or had forgotten completely about it. I started looking through that thread. It looks great so I hope to get back to it, but not most immediately.

I would think MOST Catholics would lean heavily upon an “original understanding” of the words as they were conceived by the Bishops at the EC. The previous response to this “two hypostasis” comment that I had seen was that the understanding of hypostasis among the Fathers at Nicea was largely that it was synonymous to –ousia. To instead declare that properly translated this reference to hypostasis is not an issue and perhaps ECs are infallible in their text (not in original understanding) seems like it would open up many different problems (or options to CHANGE theology).

So briefly back to hope for infants: To the extent my understanding of Nicea is not the best translation of the words at Nicea then I suppose a text based infallibility is still an option (which leaves open the Hope Infants). It is also true that I am ASSUMING the Father’s intentions, but based on the theology around limbo and … it seems this is a very solid view of Tradition and how those in the Tradition (including Fathers at Lyons and Florence) believed the words of the Fathers.

So the Fathers at Lyons and Florence said that those who die in original sin alone go to hell. This is an infallible statement made a general council called to understand the issue and yet what these Father’s didn’t know or did know and didn’t say was that while it is technically true that those who die with ONLY original sin go to hell, God might remove the original sin through a special act of grace unconnected to baptism. I don’t see how this is possessing all truth and/or pointing to an infallible council.

The more I push on these issues the more “dug in” I feel. That is probably not good.



On Newman’s theory working and Subordination being part of modern orthodoxy:
I said I have concerns it does not work (I suppose that means I am saying whatever “rupture” is, it might be on the rupture side rather than the non-rupture side and might not be). I do believe that pre-Nicea orthodox had a significant amount of ontological subordination. Were there pre-Nicea views that suggested that Christ was ontologically “coequal” with God the Father?
I remember learning from you about Calvin’s auto-theosis teaching. I can also share that most educated Catholics online do not have much to say when I claim that there is only one God who is not begotten and non-proceeding. All that being said, I can acknowledge that until Calvin’s teaching there is some subordination.

Do you think if 100 years from now Catholicism “holds the line” where Pope Francis drew it that this will not be a rupture? Or for it to not be a rupture will Tradition need to claw back from the Pope Francis innovations? Pope Francis looks like a rupture kind of guy.

I was less convinced there was “rupture” when I looked at Vatician II as Cardinal Zen does. As I have been posting here I have been looking at Vatican I form an Eastern Orthodox perspective. They like Dollinger call that rupture. As I become more “dug in” I feel more and more like being a “restorationist in waiting” is the second best choice (second after believing that my church is a restoration). I suspect there is a great deal of unchecked bias that leads to this “dug in” feeling.

Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

Some interesting reflections in your last two posts. From a perspective of legitimate doctrinal development vs doctrinal corruption, I think the 2007 understanding of infant salvation is more difficult to reconcile/support than the issue of subordination—difficult, but not believe that it is impossible. As for subordinationism, my lengthy studies into the issue of the monarchy of God the Father has eliminated pretty much all of the difficulties I had before those studies.

Now, with that said, I would like to move onto the following questions you asked:

==Do you think if 100 years from now Catholicism “holds the line” where Pope Francis drew it that this will not be a rupture? Or for it to not be a rupture will Tradition need to claw back from the Pope Francis innovations? Pope Francis looks like a rupture kind of guy.==

I think “rupture" may be too strong of an assessment, unless—and this importantly—Francis’ innovations are in the future framed within an infallible/irreformable context—i.e. an Ecumenical Council, or a Papal decree ‘from the Chair of Peter’.

You also wrote:

==I was less convinced there was “rupture” when I looked at Vatician II as Cardinal Zen does. As I have been posting here I have been looking at Vatican I form an Eastern Orthodox perspective. They like Dollinger call that rupture. As I become more “dug in” I feel more and more like being a “restorationist in waiting” is the second best choice (second after believing that my church is a restoration)==

Very interesting Tom. This is quite a substantial change in your overall assessment of the Christian paradigm, and ‘opens the door' (so to speak) for my following question:

Have you ever given Islam some serious thought as the possible ‘restoration’ of the original and pure teachings of Jesus and His apostles?


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Rory and Tom,

Thanks to an email that Rory sent me a couple of days ago, I was able to locate a post on another blog that is germane to the position on limbo and the salvation of infants the two of you believe is the clear and unalterable teaching of the Catholic Church:

Amerio on Hell

The following is from the post:

>>Chapter XLI
ESCHATOLOGY
313. The triumph of justice. Hell.

Jacques Maritain’s denial of hell in his posthumous work Approches sans entraves[10] is more worthy of consideration; he maintains that Satan will finally be pardoned and consigned, by the prayer of Christ, to the natural happiness of Limbo, together with infants who died without baptism.[11]

Karl Rahner maintains that the denial of the eternity of punishment and the assertion of universal salvation are a new development due to Vatican II, and constitute a milestone for the faith of the Church.

These are the fantasies entertained by Victor Hugo in his La Fin de Satan. Following in his footsteps Maritain says: “One day all the inhabitants of Hell…all the reprobate will be pardoned.” (Op. cit., p. 30. )

314. Defense of Hell.

Abbadie’s acute observation is relevant here. Self-love finds nothing disproportionate about eternal happiness, but eternal punishment disgusts it. Why so, he asks, if not because self-love likes to deceive itself?

If one may risk a metaphor, the condition of the lost should be thought of as being not so much an agony, as an infinitely long day of dimness and somber boredom.[18]

316. Hell as pure justice

If all things will return happily to God, by an apocatastasis of an Originest sort, then after the passage of a sufficiently long time, virginity and prostitution will come to the same thing and the past action of all human beings will be of absolutely no importance, given that what we care about is not what we were, but what we ultimately will be for the rest of eternity. The permanent reality of heaven and hell means that even though the whole temporal order, and the sequence of events that occurs within it, will be gone at the end of the world, the values of right and wrong cannot be done away with. True, the good exists unchangeably in God; but if moral goodness were not also woven into or stamped upon the order of the world as well, then the whole content of time would not alter the final state of things, and might therefore just as well not have existed. Justice, no less than mercy, is a good that must be conserved forever. The Jew from Auschwitz remains in eternity the Jew who was in Auschwitz, and the executioner Eichmann remains in eternity the executioner Eichmann. Hell is the difference between the one and the other; it is the preservation of the moral distinction between them, and thus of their moral natures. The only thing that can be destroyed is guilt, which is wiped out by forgiveness and which comes about through God’s mercy and mans repentance, but not without that repentance.



[10] J. Maritain, Approches sans entraves, “Unshackled Approaches,” Paris 1974.
[11] Whatever degree of happiness unbaptized infants who die in original sin enjoy, they are still subject to the penalty attaching to original sin, namely absence of the Beatific Vision, and they are thus in hell, but with merely negative penalty. See […] the teaching of Innocent III in 1201 and Pius VI in 1794.
[18] St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that hell is compatible with verying degress of real though imperfect natural happiness: Cf. De malo, 5, 3, and the commentary on the Sentences, II, d.33,q.2,a.2>>


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Hey Dave...

"Thanks to an email that Rory sent me a couple of days ago, I was able to locate a post on another blog that is germane to the position on limbo and the salvation of infants the two of you believe is the clear and unalterable teaching of the Catholic Church":

I am appreciating your presentation...however

I do NOT hold that there is a "clear and unalterable teaching of the Catholic Church" on the subject of the Limbo of the Children in 2020.

I merely assert the liberty to speculate, in the absence of a "clear and unalterable teaching of the Catholic Church", that the Limbo of the Children, may be faithfully presented as a place of perfect natural bliss (in Hell), while any natural happiness of the other parts of Hell are imperfect. I propose that this has potential benefit to Catholics as well as outsiders who would see what the Catholic Church allows to be believed about Hell.

As regards hope for heaven, I hold with the poet/theologian Dante that the inhabitants of Hell must abandon hope of the Beatific Vision. Hell is as unchangeable as the heart of a demon. In light of what most non-Catholics want and believe a wonderful eternity to be like, a few of the comforts of the least painful part of Hell (Limbo) would probably be adequate to satisfy every natural desire. Perfect happiness would seem to exclude any supernatural desires. But my own views are developing.

Slightly edited (developed!) from last night's deletion.

Rory

Rory

David Waltz said...

Good morning Rory,

Thanks much for clarifying your position on Limbo. Now, if I am understanding you correctly, would it be accurate to say that your view is less restrictive than Romano Amerio’s ???

Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Hi Dave.

I am not sure I understand your question.

My view is flexible, rather than restrictive, because I do not believe the Church has made any definitive declarations about Limbo. But I do not think that is what you are asking. Help. I am dense.

R

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Yesterday, you wrote:

==My view is flexible, rather than restrictive, because I do not believe the Church has made any definitive declarations about Limbo. But I do not think that is what you are asking.==

You got it right, that is what I was asking. It sure seems to me the flexibility you embrace is rejected by Roman Amerio; and unless I have totally misunderstood Tom, he too does not side with you, but rather with Amerio.


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Dave, to be clear,

I have an opinion that the Limbo of the Children is by far the most probable scenario. There is unfortunately, a grave deficiency by most of the world of the quality of existence for those in this condition. Thoughtful Catholics are probably aware that Limbo is categorized as damnation, and a compartment of Hell, as are interested non-Catholics. I could wish that the perfect natural bliss, to which St. Thos. Aquinas refers, would be more widely circulated and taught as at an acceptable speculation, both in seminaries and in the parishes.

I tend to think that this document proposing universal salvation for infants and fetuses develops less from Catholic Tradition and theology, and more from pandering to the ignorance of the masses. We don't want to be perceived as believing in a God who does not like babies.

Another factor might be our ill-formed modern priests who lack the pastoral and theological acumen to satisfactorily explain God's justice and mercy to grieving parents. Unlike traditionally trained priests, who will have instructed the faithful before about such possibilities, many modern pastors will be at a loss as to how to comfort grieving parents unless they can say that the dead baby is in heaven.

Rory

leeseykay said...

I have a friend who has been to a few Novus Ordo funerals recently for relatives who have married against the church's law, and who violated their Mass obligations almost always for years. Except for my friend who could not believe it, the relatives and friends of the dead were comforted by hearing this Catholic priest affirm that my friend's fallen away Catholic relatives were in Catholic heaven. Not even a word about praying for the dead! It is like even with the adults, in the modern church all you have to do is disobey the church all your life, and then die. Then I guess you get a booster shot of faith, hope, and charity just before you go to be judged? My friend was scandalized by it.

My point is that if these priests are willing to canonize unfaithful Catholic adults at their funerals, who could doubt that these same priests are already doing this for every dead baby, baptized or not? I tend to think that the new document that is dismissive of Limbo, is at least partially motivated by a desire to make modern Catholic theology match up better with dubious modern Catholic pastoral activity.

On a relat6ed theme, who would the modern Church believe, could qualify for Hell? The death penalty is wrong because it is supposedly against "human dignity". I do not admit that "human dignity" is demeaned by capital punishment. But my point is that if the death penalty is a violation of "human dignity", how much more would an eternal Hell be incompatible with "human dignity"!

I doubt our modernist friends are finished with working out the implications of "human dignity".

Rory

Rory

TOm said...

Hello David and Rory,
I have actually been in Disney World, it was mostly Disney even during Corona.
Anyway, I thought about your post and wanted to respond.
You said that “rupture” was too strong UNLESS Pope Francis’ innovations are framed as infallible/irreformable in the future. I recognize that the minimalist view of Papal Infallibility recognizes that ONLY two things have been an exercise of PI. I do not think anything Francis has done with the exception of change the CCC is anywhere near those. And I do not think changing the CCC is an exercise of Papal Infallibility. But, if the Catholic Church proper does not claw back from Pope Francis’ innovations over the next 100 years, it would seem to me that we have an exercise of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. I even think the CCC unchallenged by “faithful” prelates is an exercise of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It seems to me that with the CCC and with the previous 100 years solidifying that the Catholic Church is the Pope Francis church, it will be very difficult to hold the view that anti-Vatican II folks who are not Sedavacantists who believe there is something amiss with the entire authority structure of Pope Francis’ church.
The above and more reflections on Vatican I lead to my comment you asked about next. I am not suggesting that it is not easy to dismiss the CoJCoLDS by pointing to the origins of the BOA. I am saying that Pope Francis (and if I include Salvation of Infants, much post Vatican II CHANGES) has made it somewhat easy to dismiss Pope Francis’ church. The argument that the origin of the BOA COULD be something for which there is little positive evidence is weak because it relies upon convenient “it might be like this.” I am not sure that the excuses for the CHANGES I see are as strong as “it might be like this.” You seem to lean upon the clawing back of “innovations” and/or the non-binding nature of innovations to say “it might be like this.” But for it to be like that would require a lot things to happen in the future that seem unlikely at the moment. To the extent that Vatican I is a rupture I do not see a path back. To the extent that Salvation for Infants is the new normal for the dismissal of previous teachings solidified at 2+ ECs, I do not see a path back (Salvation of Infants might be a one-off that is neglected more and more as folks doing theology, do theology “the Catholic way”).
I think there are at least three possible pro-Catholic futures. One the folks who believe preservation of Tradition is important begin to be heard and/or Pope Francis does something that is even more problematic and his critics begin to have MUCH more influence. This would be a very human way of correcting the problem I mention above. I am amazed that more humans do not see the problem and try to fix it today. This would remove much of the problem Pope Francis is for Catholic truth claims, but the existence of this time would still witness against Catholicism.
Two would be something far more miraculous happens. That results in a dramatic correction and Catholicism returns to the faith it once was WITH the added miracle which shows that Catholicism is protected from error by God to MANY people. This would remove the problem Pope Francis is for Catholic truth claims, but its miraculous nature (to the extent it is recognized by Catholics, good faith Catholic watchers like David, and more biased watchers like me, and much more biased watchers like James White) would turn this into a positive for Catholic truth claims. I am not sure what this miracle would look like such that it would influence those who are not already holding onto Catholicism because it is the Truth.
Three Christ returns and shows up in Rome to reclaim His Church and then calls Salt Lake City on the phone. This is the reverse of a joke that I heard long ago. When President Nelson gets the call from Christ, I expect he will tell us to become Catholic and then we can all be One Church!
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

David,
You asked why Islam is not the restoration that would fulfill a “restorationist in waiting,” especially one who suggests that problems exist with changing the unchangeable faith as early as Nicea.






I have a few answers and for me they are sufficient by themselves even, but I will offer the four that come to mind.

1. Islam like Catholicism cannot explain the Book of Mormon and the answers to prays associated with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is not a human production IMO. The answers to sincere prayers about its meaning come regularly to hundreds of folks who change their life in a Christ centric way.

2. I find a great deal of value/inspiration in the New Testament. I have not actually conducted the “pray to know if it is true” with respect to the New Testament, because I have never felt the need.

3. I am first a theist. I have spent many hours thinking atheist thoughts. I do not think that there is any scientific reason to be an atheist. I think there is value in “fine tuning” argument and in argument from “self-replicating DNA.” The later lead to Anthony Flew becoming a theist. More than either of those, I do not think Atheists have a sufficient explanation for “Spiritual Experiences.” I am second a Christian. I have strong spiritual experiences that tell me that God wants me to return to Him, that I must have the atonement to return, and that the atonement is active in my life (when I don’t refuse it). And that this atonement fueled return includes deification. These “Christian” things are very real for me and I don’t see how Islam is “Christian enough” to account for these. I remember finding that the Bahai faith was not “Christian enough” which leaves Islam farther afield.

4. I am a Christian. I have FORCED myself to consider Atheism. I have FORCED myself to consider the Bahai faith. I believe this is more than is necessary. I have spent little time with other non-Christian structures, and this is a product of where God plopped me in the world. I do not think God requires me to consider every wonderful faith that exists among His Children (plus, I do not know Arabic and I understand my limited reading in the Koran is negatively impacted by this, but I am not going to correct it).



So my Christian studies lead me to consider Catholic continuation (with development of necessity) or LDS Restoration because I agree with the idea that Protestantism falls as the very strongly connected child of Catholicism. I do not spend much time outside the Christian paradigm.
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

Disney World certainly trumps AF (grin). One of our daughters and her family were there 3 weeks ago and said it was a surreal experience—they were not able to get reservations for Star Wars Galaxy Edge in the Hollywood Studios park, but every other park was open to them, with no waiting in line for anything!

The rest of your post is dedicated to explaining why you now believe that the Catholic claim to being the one, true Church of Christ is now a much weaker one in the Francis era. I find your assessment to be well reasoned; and the fact that you provide "three possible pro-Catholic futures", leaves me with nothing significant to criticize.

With that said, I am very interesting in hearing from Rory—perhaps he has discerned a definitive weakness in your assessment that I have missed.

Before ending, I do have on question for you—what exactly is the “rupture” you have in mind concerning the following you wrote:


“To the extent that Vatican I is a rupture I do not see a path back.”


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

David,
You asked about Vatican I. Here are some of my thoughts on this (some of this was written a while ago).

In my July 27th post I suggested that Vatican I produced Old Catholics. That Old Catholics have not maintained an academic mindset, but had they there are many fruitful areas to point to Vatican I as a BREAK with Catholic Tradition just as intellectual Catholics today point to Vatican II as a break with Tradition.

An Eastern Orthodox fellow recently shared with me an essay by an Eastern Orthodox scholar about Vatican I and Papal Infallibility. It sounds to me VERY much like the anti-Vatican II apologetics I read. The only additional component that would be present if it was written by Dollinger/Lefebvre or his academic descendant NOBODY/Pagliarani (maybe) is something about the irregularity of Vatican I. The fact it lasted for >5-6 decades (it was quietly closed to allow Vatican II to start). The fact that the Bishops who opposed the definition went home and many didn’t vote their approval or disapproval. The numerous debates and discussion about what Papal Infallibility is and is not still raging today. And surely other things ….
Because I am obnoxious, I am sure you both (David and Rory) know what I conclude from this, but I think it should give Vatican II deniers pause. From reading Cardinal Newman’s letters I knew there were problems with Vatican I, but this author presents those and more (and unlike Newman, his position is that Vatican I was not a real council AND Papal Infallibility is neither true nor ancient).

I just started reading it 3 weeks ago and it struck me so I thought I would post about it here. I have not even finished reading all of it.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/articles/39-the-vatican-dogma

Charity, TOm

leeseykay said...

Hello Dave. Hello Tom.

To mention the obvious, my life and my Catholic faith has been lived in the last two centuries. The problem of this most recent pontificate is not different than that of his predecessors. It did not require a Pope Francis to make visionaries of Catholic Tradition who had the foresight to realize that the implementation of Vatican II would eventually lead to Jorge Bergoglio.

I cannot claim to be one of those visionaries. But when I read what they write about Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, I understand and believe that they had at least recognized where circumstances would be leading. I have now been a Traditional Catholic for longer than I was in the Novus Ordo. From 2005 forward, my affiliation with the Society of St. Pius X has been predicated on belief that there has been a severe crisis of faith in the Catholic Church among virtually all of the bishops of the Catholic Church, as well as the successors of St. Peter, since at least the mid-1970's.

As a Traditionalist now, I would think that those would have to be the darkest days to have tried to maintain one's Catholic faith, when Tradition had not very visibly asserted itself. God never abandons His flock, but the sheep are nevertheless susceptible to fears that disturb their peace.

I do not recall if I have cited this here before. One well known English literary figure's last known correspondence contains a lamentation written a few days before his death. At the end of an otherwise convivial note to a friend, the writer relates to the way the changes that were being imposed on the Catholic Church affected him even in the mid-1960's. Dated 30 March 1966:

"Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his Council - they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy. Church going is a pure duty parade. I shall not live to see it restored. It is worse in many countries."

Evelyn Waugh died on Easter Sunday, 10 April, 1966. The notes say he attended Mass in the form he preferred, returned home, and had a fatal heart attack that morning.

...to be continued, Rory

leeseykay said...

What is not so obvious, is that my life and my Catholic faith are lived in the last two millenia. I joined and remain in the Catholic Church conscious of the fact that Christians whose faith unto blood produced the most astounding "I can't believe what my eyes just saw" moment in World History. Who in the times of Christ could have foreseen the times of Constantine the Great? Only God could have wrought such work.

No one even disputes that the Roman Empire was overcome and replaced by the Roman Church. But now, not many people have appropriate regard for this event. It is a miraculous sign of the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles who founded the Roman Church as well as the converts that the Apostles made. The Catholic who is focused on this miracle and those that follow for 17 centuries is well fortified against concerns for the future of the Catholic Church.

That ancient brotherhood which taught Rome to kneel, is the only one in which I have an interest, whatever its name be today. I have established to my satisfaction that this same Church has remained visibly identifiable, for the last two thousand years, with continued miraculous signs of her holy origins. It is now fittingly called the Roman Catholic Church.

As I said before, I have lived in the 20th and 21st Centuries to be sure, and I am sure I am a child of my age. I wish to have lived at no other time than has been my lot. But every Catholic must walk back and add to what he gains in his own times, from what may be gained from dear fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers of the recent past, the distant past, and the ancient past. We believe in the communion of the saints. I fear modern Catholics fail to see how intimately bound together all the Christians are, with their comparable pilgrim lives taking place in distinctly various diverse times and places. The communion of saints implies an attachment, and a deep sense of gratitude towards our dear friends from distant times.

---to be continues, Rory

leeseykay said...

Vatican II did not hide its admiration for a hideous and modern theory about man's evolving knowledge of what they call "human dignity". Corresponding to this presumed advance modern man has made in supposedly discovering itself, is a natural disposition against people in past times and places. I do not hesitate to say that any such disposition springs from the father of lies because of the way it makes us focus on the present to a fault. Most people today envision people from even the recent past as being unfortunate at best. I don't know if there has been any other age of man where man has so successfully convinced himself to celebrate himself. The communion of saints is meaningless to souls so poisoned.

So Pope Francis is here. Only through a failure to remember the treasures of the Catholic past and our relationship to it, can a Bergoglio succeed in spreading his novelties. Modernist (as opposed to Traditional) Catholics are those who ignorantly despise the Catholic Church before the Council.

But how did they get to this place? They believe the spirit of the age which celebrates and worships itself. The age which in a vision made Pope Leo XIII shudder and compose the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. Modern Catholics have come to believe in and ardently approve of rupture from a past they have been poisoned to believe is evil, and ugly and stupid. It comes through media, through public education, and it comes through Catholic priests, prelates, and popes since the Second Vatican Council. Instead of defending our good fathers of the past, popes like John Paul II apologize for the lies that Satan has been sowing for 2,000 years. Whether we speak of Constantine, crusades, or inquisitions, the modern Church appears to be no longer willing to defend itself.

John Paul II's apologies for his historical ancestors is to condemn the modern church for though they do not like it we are joined, at the heart, and the head, and the hands of their ignorantly despised brothers and sisters through the communion of the saints. If John Paul II was right to make all of his apologies against the Church of yesterday, the Catholic Church of today is false, which is impossible. Therefore, the handicapped and blinded modern Catholic Church of which I am a member, must be healed and illuminated.

Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail. According to what I understood from Tom, this would require a miracle of some sort. I vote for that option. It will be more grand than the overthrow of pagan Rome the first time! To God be the glory. Once again, Rome will learn to kneel. According to our Lady of Fatima, it will happen when it appears Christ's Church is defeated. She says, "It will be late...but in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph."

On the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Ora Pro Nobis!

Rory