I am a subscriber to The Catholic World Report—as such, on May 1, 2019 I became aware of a "group of nineteen Catholics, including some prominent academics" who "published an open letter to the bishops of the world accusing Pope Francis of heresy" (see this link).
[Online copy of the letter here; PDF copy here.]
Numerous
websites over the last few days have been analyzing and discussing this provocative
letter. As expected, some folk fully concur with charges of the letter, whilst
others take issue with it.
Interestingly
enough, Jimmy Akin—a conservative Catholic convert and well known apologist—is
one of those folk who takes issue with the letter. On May 2, 2019 his following
article was published online:
On
May 5, 2019 another conservative Catholic convert and well known apologist,
Dave Armstrong, defends Jimmy Akin in the following post:
Websites
that side with the charges of the open letter, include:
Directly
related to the issue at hand was an earlier, "25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay
scholars [that] was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th [2017]".
(Link to quote here ; link to letter here.)
So, is Pope Francis guilty
of heresy? The two above letters are compelling; but then, Jimmy Akin's
analysis raises some serious questions. For now, I have not been able to reach
a conclusion on the matter. Would be very interested in hearing from those folk
who have...
Grace and peace,
40 comments:
Dave hey...
I am sorry that I have not responded to what would usually be compelling to me in Rod Bennett.
You remember I am sure, the visit of James Akin when I brought him to your house many years ago. He is now known as Jimmy, and wears a cowboy hat.
I have been distracted...The Mormons had discovered this letter last week:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71836-the-lament-of-evelyn-waugh/
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71818-pope-francis-accused-of-heresy/
I think James would have been better off if you had offered him a job at Vent Air. As it is, I am thankful I wasn't sharp enough to get on with Catholic Answers. I wore my old Vent Air shirt to work today. I am not going to compare it to Juan Diego's tilma yet...but it seems indestructible!
3DOP
I read Jimmy Akin’s response a few days ago.
My impression was that he said that there are infallible and irreformable truths that if denied do not warrant the accusation of heresy. This is because in addition to being an infallible and irreformable truth a truth must be declared to be divinely revealed AND declared to be divinely revealed by the magisterium before the denial of said truth is in fact heresy. A truth can be infallible, irreformable, and divinely revealed; but if it is not declared by the magisterium (two types), denial of this God revealed truth is not heresy.
I think the Pope is a heretic because he doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon came from God, so I am not as concerned about the technicalities of when one is a heretic and when one is not. What seems CLEAR to me is that the Pope does not believe what I have been taught after I put down my liberal parish upbringing and tried to understand what Catholicism really is. The Pope does not believe that the idea of development of doctrine involves continuity with the past in any way I can discern.
If capital punishment is inappropriate because of the inherent dignity of man, then either Catholic teaching concerning this (death penalty and/or inherent dignity of man) has been wrong for all of history OR the inherent dignity of man has changed. I am not aware of anyone who would suggest that the inherent dignity of man has changed.
The Pope IMO does not believe one of the foundation aspects of the Catholic faith as I was taught it by Catholic Answers (and really also by you and Rory).
I think another example of this is The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised which pre-dates Pope Frances’ pontificate. There is nothing wrong with grandmothers and others hoping that there is salvation for anyone, but when theologians who claim to embrace what the Catholic Church claimed before Vatican II write a document like this they depart from the historical faith.
I am going to a confirmation for the son of a conservative Catholic friend of mine. He is troubled by Pope Francis, has expressed a desire to attend with the FSSP, but his time and money are probably integral to the survival of his current parish. And yet … he waited months to have his baby daughter baptized. I expressed shock when I discovered this, but I am not sure he can see why I was shocked.
I occasionally ponder what it means for me to be a former Catholic. Until my very liberal childhood priest who knows I am a LDS offered me the Eucharist during my mother’s last rites (if there was the slightest discussion of it being appropriate for me to take and why do I refuse and … it might have been difficult for my mother), I had not had the Eucharist out of respect for the faith of Catholics for years. If the Catholicism I learned from Catholic Answers is true, this is a mortal sin. If I am not “invincibly ignorant,” it would seem to me I will be tortured for an eternity in hell. When I think about this, I take solace in the fact that while I do not have 100% confidence in my fallible reasoning powers, I am sure I do not believe God is going to relegate me to hell because I have weighed evidence wrongly and somehow misinterpreted what I consider to be answers to prays from Him. I don’t think I can believe this and I don’t think there are THEOLOGICALLY SOUND reasons for Catholics to deny this.
Unless Pope Francis’ non-public communication to his homosexual friend, Yayo Grassi, who I understand like me is a baptized and confirmed Catholics, (and Mr. Grassi's partner) is very different than his public embrace of his former student; Pope Francis cannot believe that his friend will spend eternity in hell either.
It is confusing to me to think the Pope Francis is a heretic OR he is someone who has no idea what Catholicism is OR all I was taught 15-20 years ago is not accurate. If there is some truth there, I think I probably am “invincibly ignorant” and thus I get into heaven on a technicality. That has got to be as big a mess as any “nailing jello to the wall.”
Charity, TOm
Hi Rory,
Thanks for taking the time to comment; you wrote:
==You remember I am sure, the visit of James Akin when I brought him to your house many years ago. He is now known as Jimmy, and wears a cowboy hat.==
The first thing that came to mind when I saw Akin's online article was your visit with him at my home in Vancouver. If I remember correctly, back then you were a big fan of Catholic Answers—I still have an issue of their journal/magazine This Rock that you gave me.
As for Jimmy vs. James, Jimmy is his given name, and the name on his birth certificate. (See this link for his clarification.)
==I think James would have been better off if you had offered him a job at Vent Air. As it is, I am thankful I wasn't sharp enough to get on with Catholic Answers.==
LOL...Jimmy seems to have done quite well for himself since his conversion to the Catholic Church. In addition to being a "Senior Apologist" at Catholic Answers, he has had a number of books published. Interestingly enough, yesterday, I received in the mail Ignatius Press' Spring 2019 catalog, and on page five in the NEW BOOKS section, was a book by Akin—Teaching With Authority—which I ordered earlier this morning. This book is one of five by Akin offered by Ignatius Press.
Now, moving forward, I would like to know what you believe are the critical errors in Akin's article that I linked to above.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Tom,
Thanks much for sharing your thoughts on Akin's article and related issues. I am deeply pondering over much of what you have written; as such, I am reserving comment/s for later. But with that said, I would like to bring to your attention a germane article concerning infallibility that I read earlier today:
The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium
I found the following to be of particular interest:
>>The Pope is not infallible as a private person, or as a public person in relation to a part of the Church – i.e., when teaching as the ordinary of Rome, or Patriarch of the West, but only as a public person in relation to the entire Church. Hence, to be preserved from error he must be teaching the entire Church, as Pope, and he must do so with the express intention of defining a doctrine. These two conditions are required for an ex cathedra teaching.>>
More later, the Lord willing...
Grace and peace,
David
David,
I learned from some bright fellows that it is best to be a minimalist when it comes to suggesting that the Pope is utilizing his Charism of Infallibity to authoritatively and infalliblely define dogma.
I believe there were TWO instances of it use, the Emmaculate Conception and the Assumption.
I lean towards the belief that Pope John Paul II may have thought his statements against ordaining woman were utilizing his Charism of Infallibility, but Cardinal Ratzhinger said it was not and I am sure the Pope was fine with this. There are still some scholars or perhaps apologists who point to this as a third exercise.
Anyway, my point is not that Pope Francis has taught in a way that reasonable folks (or even partially reasonable folks such as me as I get older and more honery), would believe was intending to or actually using the Charism of Infallibility AND thus his teachigns that contradict irreformable truth evidence that Vatican I was not protected from error.
My point is that the continuity with the past concept of Catholicism is NOT something that Pope Francis believes in. I no longer think Jimmy Akin is aligned with the strongest (most likely to be true) form of Catholicism. Instead, Rory is aligned with the strongest (most likely to be true) form of Catholicism.
Have you read Karl Keatings book where he addresses three critics of Pope Francis? I have read parts of it and I do not think Karl Keating is at the same place as Jimmy Akin or Trent Horn or the majority of Catholic Answers (at least in their public apologetic work).
I have a memory of Jimmy Akin speaking on Catholic Answers before the first synod on the family when it was clear that a cardinal (perhaps a group) was quite set on changing the Catholic teaching on the divorced and remarried. It was clear in my biased mind that Jimmy Akin wanted to say “never gonna happen,” but couldn’t quite bring himself to do so. I suppose his restraint was good because it did happen about 1 year later as I recall.
Charity, TOm
Hello again Tom,
Last night, you wrote:
== I learned from some bright fellows that it is best to be a minimalist when it comes to suggesting that the Pope is utilizing his Charism of Infallibity to authoritatively and infalliblely define dogma.
I believe there were TWO instances of it use, the Emmaculate Conception and the Assumption.==
Quite sometime ago, I came to the exact same conclusions.
==I lean towards the belief that Pope John Paul II may have thought his statements against ordaining woman were utilizing his Charism of Infallibility, but Cardinal Ratzhinger said it was not and I am sure the Pope was fine with this. There are still some scholars or perhaps apologists who point to this as a third exercise.==
Was not aware of the above. Though I have not studied out this particular issue, my instinct is to side with Ratzinger.
==Anyway, my point is not that Pope Francis has taught in a way that reasonable folks (or even partially reasonable folks such as me as I get older and more honery), would believe was intending to or actually using the Charism of Infallibility AND thus his teachigns that contradict irreformable truth evidence that Vatican I was not protected from error.==
I concur.
==My point is that the continuity with the past concept of Catholicism is NOT something that Pope Francis believes in.==
This seems to be an accurate conclusion.
==I no longer think Jimmy Akin is aligned with the strongest (most likely to be true) form of Catholicism. Instead, Rory is aligned with the strongest (most likely to be true) form of Catholicism.==
A very interesting assessment.
==Have you read Karl Keatings book where he addresses three critics of Pope Francis?==
I have not. Is the book titled, The Francis Feud (2018) ???
Grace and peace,
David
David,
You of course were the "some bright fellows" with help from Rory perhaps.
Yes, I did mean that from Keating. I have not read it, just read about it.
Charity, TOm
For a balanced assessment of the most recent letter, now issued to "the bishops" since they know that the Holy Father will not respond to criticism, I would recommend Ed Feser. He thinks the letter itself was poorly thought out and makes claims that are too bold. I am persuaded. But he also gives some good ideas on how, if some of the rhetoric was softened it raises valid points that are irrefutable.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/05/some-comments-on-open-letter.html
"Suppose that the open letter had alleged, not that the pope is guilty of the canonical delict of heresy, but rather that the pope’s words and actions have, even if inadvertently, encouraged doctrinal error, or perhaps that the pope has been negligent in his duty to uphold sound doctrine. It would be much harder to defend the pope against these milder charges, as the evidence adduced in the open letter clearly shows. These milder charges also would not raise the question of the loss of the papal office, with all of its unresolved canonical and theological difficulties and horrific practical implications. And it would also (unlike the prospect of a formally heretical pope) have clear precedents in the cases of Honorius and John XXII."
I admit that I didn't follow James Akin's thinking. To read the Catholic Answers crowd, one would think a pope has done his duty if all of his words and actions could be possibly understood in a way that does not conflict with the Catholic faith. Are we to expect no positive doctrinal leadership from the Vicar of Christ? This pope refuses to clarify what he believes after saying things that seem terribly difficult to reconcile with the Catholic faith. But we are supposed to be reassured because if popes get accused of heresy, it means that he is misunderstood. Stupid us, we should know that Francis believes the entire Catholic faith because he has never infallibly defined error.
Why does the pope get a free pass to be able to continually express his thoughts in ways that make heretics and unbelievers think he is one of them while making conservatives and Traditionalists think he is not one of us?. How can we blame Luther, and let Francis off the hook? There was an article I saw recently where a Traditional Catholic made the accusation that Bergoglio's soteriology was Lutheran. Wow! That would be great, was my first thought. I had the impression that Francis wasn't anywhere as near to Catholicism as Martin Luther was. I think a much better case can be made that Luther was orthodox than that Pope Francis is orthodox.
Anyway...read Feser's article.
Above I say "I am persuaded." I meant that I was persuaded by Feser that the letter accusing the pope of "the canonical depict of heresy" should have been more restrained, for the reasons he gives.
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for the link to Feser's post. Dr. Feser is one of my favorite 21st century Catholic writers. I am a subscriber to his blog, so I am a bit baffled that I somehow missed his May 6th post.
Having now finished reading his opening post (but not the 90 comments), I can say that he has re-enforced my initial inclinations concerning the provocative letter, as well my understanding of a number of Francis' highly controversial positions—Francis is guilty of embracing, and promoting, a number of dogmatic and moral errors, but he is not guilty of formal heresy.
The following from Feser's opening post is a great summary of the current situation (IMO):
>>...when the pope not only makes theologically ambiguous statements about divorce and remarriage, conscience, etc. but refuses to clarify those statements, and promotes and praises people with a reputation for departing from traditional teaching in these areas while criticizing and sidelining people with a reputation for upholding traditional teaching, it is hardly surprising if many people worry – whether correctly or not – that he does not agree with traditional teaching but doesn’t want to say so directly.>>
As to what happens next in this unfolding scenario, I have no idea...
Grace and peace,
David
It isn't enough that a pope has figured out how to tiptoe through canon law to avoid being charged with formal heresy. The sheep don't understand canon law. But they know the voice of the true shepherd, and they know the voice of a wolf. Are the sheep supposed to be comforted because the wolf is cunning? Here we are wondering if the pope is a formal heretic, when he has told us by his acts and informal words that he does not have the Catholic faith of our fathers. He thinks he can change the Catholic faith. It isn't in his power, even as pope.
Does nobody stop to think at what a place we have arrived when Catholics are happy if a pope is only a material heretic? Oh joy, he hasn't defined his errors ex cathedra. So according to Jimmy Akin, we sheep should just be happy with everything a pope says even if it is 100% offensive to pious ears, as long as he avoids elevating his offensive teaching to a level of authority equal to the definition of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Sorry James. This is all novelty. We didn't even need those "definitions". The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were already defined by the ordinary magisterium. It wasn't okay to ignore a holy day of obligation every year on August 15th because you were Catholic and didn't believe in the Assumption because the pope hadn't defined it infallibly. Guess what? It was mortal sin to ignore the Feast of the Assumption in 1949. No Catholic needs papal infallibility for any of those teachings that have feast days like both of those that have been "solemnly defined".
So what feast day celebrates the unique teachings of Francis? On what date is the "Feast of Adulterers Receiving Holy Communion Worthily"? I know it isn't in the 1962 Calendar. On what day do Novus Ordos rejoice over that? Precisely where is the church located that is sanctified under the patronage of "Atheists Don't Go to Hell, They Just Disappear" Catholic Church. They probably should shorten it to "Annihilation Chapel". Who that was Catholic at the beginning of the century believes any of the crappola that the Holy Father pronounces, and then refuses to affirm or deny?
Still...he is the fruit, not the root. Pull it up from the roots. Vatican II. I don't want Benedict, or John Paul II, or the one who lived for thirty days who was obviously pro Vatican II, being the first pope to adopt two names, those of the two popes who started and promulgated that wretched council. I don't even need a saint. Just any pope who will obey our Lady of Fatima, who if you consider it, offers in exchange for investing ten minutes for a ceremony to consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart, will give you everything that Vatican II tries to get. I don't fault Vatican II for its motives. I fault it for its methods. I find it interesting that Vatican II and our Lady of Fatima have the same goals. When is a pope going to try Fatima, and give up on that stupid council?
Rory
"beginning of the century"? I date myself. I meant 20th Century when I wrote it. That is not the first, nor probably the last that I make that mistake.
Hi Rory,
In yesterday's post, you raise some serious concerns; you wrote:
==It isn't enough that a pope has figured out how to tiptoe through canon law to avoid being charged with formal heresy. The sheep don't understand canon law. But they know the voice of the true shepherd, and they know the voice of a wolf. Are the sheep supposed to be comforted because the wolf is cunning? Here we are wondering if the pope is a formal heretic, when he has told us by his acts and informal words that he does not have the Catholic faith of our fathers. He thinks he can change the Catholic faith. It isn't in his power, even as pope.==
I suspect when you say that Francis, in his capacity as Pope, cannot "change the Catholic Faith", you are limiting "the Catholic Faith" to those dogmatic and moral teachings that have been infallibly declared by the Magisterium.
==Does nobody stop to think at what a place we have arrived when Catholics are happy if a pope is only a material heretic? Oh joy, he hasn't defined his errors ex cathedra. So according to Jimmy Akin, we sheep should just be happy with everything a pope says even if it is 100% offensive to pious ears, as long as he avoids elevating his offensive teaching to a level of authority equal to the definition of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary?==
So what are pious Catholics to do? Are scathing letters to Francis, Cardinals and Bishops the only recourse?
==Sorry James. This is all novelty. We didn't even need those "definitions". The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were already defined by the ordinary magisterium. It wasn't okay to ignore a holy day of obligation every year on August 15th because you were Catholic and didn't believe in the Assumption because the pope hadn't defined it infallibly. Guess what? It was mortal sin to ignore the Feast of the Assumption in 1949. No Catholic needs papal infallibility for any of those teachings that have feast days like both of those that have been "solemnly defined".==
I do not wish to detract from our current topic, but your take on feast days raises some questions for me. For instance, the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the past had a feast day in the RCC, but that feast day has been suppressed. Any thoughts on this?
==Still...he is the fruit, not the root. Pull it up from the roots. Vatican II. I don't want Benedict, or John Paul II, or the one who lived for thirty days who was obviously pro Vatican II, being the first pope to adopt two names, those of the two popes who started and promulgated that wretched council.==
Very interesting. Could list what you believe to be are the top five erroneous teachings promulgated by Vactican II.
==I don't even need a saint. Just any pope who will obey our Lady of Fatima, who if you consider it, offers in exchange for investing ten minutes for a ceremony to consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart, will give you everything that Vatican II tries to get. I don't fault Vatican II for its motives. I fault it for its methods. I find it interesting that Vatican II and our Lady of Fatima have the same goals. When is a pope going to try Fatima, and give up on that stupid council?==
I truly wonder how many baptized Catholics have full knowledge of the messages delivered by Mary at Fatima—10%, 5%, 1% ...
Grace and peace,
David
Dave
I suspect when you say that Francis, in his capacity as Pope, cannot "change the Catholic Faith", you are limiting "the Catholic Faith" to those dogmatic and moral teachings that have been infallibly declared by the Magisterium.
Rory
Yes.
Dave
So what are pious Catholics to do? Are scathing letters to Francis, Cardinals and Bishops the only recourse?
Rory
Scathing letters should sent to articuli fidei. According to the Code of Canon Law, Canon 212:3, the faithful have the right to make their needs and wishes known: "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."
We certainly have canonical permission to do this, however, why make appeals when you cannot believe that they will do any good? Pious Catholics are to "walk circumspectly, not as unwise, but as wise: redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore become not unwise, but understanding what is the will of God."
Eph. 5 is the Epistle reading for the twentieth Sunday after Pentecost when Holy Mother Church begins to focus our minds on what to expect: Dom Gueranger makes this comment on the passage: "As the nuptials of the Son of God approach their final completion, there will also be, on the side of hell, a redoubling of rage against the bride, with a determination to destroy her. The dragon of the Apocalypse, the old serpent who seduced Eve, will cast out water as a river from his mouth - that is, he will urge on all the passions of man, that they may league together for her ruin..." Explaining how tempting it is to become "unwise" against St. Pasul's warning during evil days...Dom Gueranger continues: "Those future worldly-wise people will forget that our Lord needs no shrewd schemes to help Him to keep His promise (of preserving His Church); they will entirely overlook this most elementary consideration, that the co-operation which Jesus deigns to accept at the hands of his servants in the defence of the rights of His Church, never could consist in the disguising of those grand truths which constitute the power and beauty of the bride. They will forget the Apostle's maxim, laid down in his Epistle to the Romans, that to conform oneself to this world, to attempt an impossible adaptation of the Gospel to a world that in unchristianized, is not the means for proving what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. So that it will be a thing of great and rare merit, in many an occurrence of those unhappy times, merely to 'understand what is the will of God,as our Epistle expresses it."
Assuredly, this passage is applicable for St. Paul's time, and for all times. The "pious Catholics" will do their duty according to their state of life. They will believe that by sanctifying their days and nights, through prayer, and work, and redeeming the time, they will do their part for Christ's kingdom in their times. They go to the Immemorial Mass, and follow the known directives of Our Lady of Fatima to the faithful. They say their Rosaries, and make the Five First Saturdays. They do it all with faith and trust in the word of God, without being unduly upset about political and ecclesiastical problems. This alone is "a thing of great and rare merit." They should let themselves ponder these simple ideas of St. Paul's with great joy in the simplicity of God's good will, and take courage during confusing times.
Dave
I do not wish to detract from our current topic, but your take on feast days raises some questions for me. For instance, the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the past had a feast day in the RCC, but that feast day has been suppressed. Any thoughts on this?
Rory
I wasn't familiar with the Seven Sleepers. But I see your point that if the Church had once proposed veneration and prayers to the Seven Sleepers, and now says they never existed, I would need to back away from my implications about the infallibility of the Church in her calendar, or at least make some adjustments.
Thoughts and observations:
1) I have not seen that the Roman Rite had this in their calendar.
2) Is it settled that the story is only legendary? I saw an Orthodox Church in America website that seemed to be proposing the story as a true history.
3) Presumably, there are churches in communion with Rome who hold to a similar position as the OCA.
4) The Sleepers are in the Roman Martyrology. That is a collection of stories about the martyrs which chronicles a brief mention of what happened to them on the days of their martyrdoms. I think it is actually anticipated. That is, their stories are read on the vigils of their martyrdoms. The Martyrology is still used among priests and religious who recite the old Breviary Office of Prime (about 9 AM).
5) The Eastern Churches commemorate them on Aug. 4. The Romans have had St. Dominic occupy that day recently. (Probably hundreds of years.)
I do not want to derail either. But I would like further information on when you think the Catholic Church suppressed this feast day, and if it happened because the Church recognized it as a mistake.
Thanks,
Rory
Hello again Rory,
Thanks much for responding to my question. You wrote:
==I wasn't familiar with the Seven Sleepers.==
Did you forget our discussion in the combox of THIS THREAD ???
==But I see your point that if the Church had once proposed veneration and prayers to the Seven Sleepers, and now says they never existed, I would need to back away from my implications about the infallibility of the Church in her calendar, or at least make some adjustments.==
The above is what came to mind.
==I do not want to derail either. But I would like further information on when you think the Catholic Church suppressed this feast day, and if it happened because the Church recognized it as a mistake.==
I don't know when the suppression took place, nor the reason behind it. My knowledge of the suppression came via THIS POST.
Perhaps the author of the post made an error. Will dig deeper into this issue, and shall let you know if I find any additional information.
Grace and peace,
David
David
Could list what you believe to be are the top five erroneous teachings promulgated by Vactican II.
Rory
I think most Traditionalists would list at least three.
1) The Declaration on Religious Liberty would seem to imply that the state should not be responsible to try to recognize religious truth.
---Portugal was governed by Freemasons intent upon destroying the Catholic faith in that nation at the time of the Fatima visions. After that, the Christians gained the upper hand and they elected a President named Salazar, who enacted laws in favor of the one true faith. This represented a return to the normal conditions for a Catholic nation that was not well-received by many Catholics outside Portugal, especially in the nations that had followed America into governmental models that recognize the rights of all religion, or as in France from time to time, the rights of no religion.
Fatima understands and teaches that "nations" need to be Catholic as well as persons. For instance, one of Our Lady's promises if her requests are fulfilled is "the conversion of Russia". Another unconditional promise states that, "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved."
The Vatican II document on "religious liberty" resulted in several Catholic countries revising their constitutions to reflect the duty of the state to renounce its recognition of the true faith. This seems incompatible with the "Social Reign of Christ the King." This teaching of the Church affirms that not only can individuals be baptized and sanctified, but so can the social institutions where the majority party is of the Catholic faith.
Does the Social Reign differ from Sharia Law? Apparently, it agrees that social institutions should reflect the faith of a nation's people. I am not familiar enough with life under ordinary Muslim rule to say for sure, but under Christian rule, the state could in no way try to coerce conversions. This requires a very prudential approach to non-Catholic religions that tends to limit the ability of non-Catholics to proselytize and allows them to gather privately. It would forego measures such as extra taxes for non-Catholics, or other economic incentives should they convert to the true faith.
In a word, it would be necessary to allow other religions to exist without making the mistake of persecuting them or otherwise encouraging a false "conversion" and invalid baptisms. At the same time, the Catholic state could not grant equal rights to error as to truth.
----
The other two errors come from, 2)the decrees on ecumenism and, 3) on collegiality of bishops.
As for my commentary immediately above, that is how I understand the matter. Traditionalists disagree, I am sure about the application of the Social Reign of Christ. It is so far-fetched at this time it is truly only an "academic question". Nevertheless, it seems necessary to uphold the ancient teaching of the Church, which would seem to be based on God's covenant with the nation of Israel. When the Gospel went to "the nations", would it have been better, as Vatican II seems to indicate, to avoid, if possible, a Constantine, who adopted Christianity and gave great favors to it? If Vatican II is true, and religious liberty is the Catholic norm, maybe Rod Bennett is wrong about Constantine, and our good LDS friend is right about an apostasy in general? This is the way I have been habitually made to think about these questions. What would the Mormons say?
Rory
David
I truly wonder how many baptized Catholics have full knowledge of the messages delivered by Mary at Fatima—10%, 5%, 1% ...
Rory
The Church has persistently refused to publish the letter of Sister Lucia that Pope John read in 1960, when he reportedly placed it back in the desk, saying, "This is not for our times". It was in the early 2000's while John Paul II was alive that the Vatican announced that it was revealing the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima. They gave an interpretation of the secret by saying it was fulfilled with the assassination attempt made against John Paul early in to his pontificate.
This didn't satisfy very many Fatima followers. There are several popes including Pius XII and John Paul II, who have made significant consecrations to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But they were always done in such a way as to be incomplete according to the Fatima instructions. Russia is not converted and this is not an era of great peace promised to follow. Why would Pope John Paul, have a prayer meeting with leaders of many world religions for the purpose of world peace, if we were already living in that era? Why is there continuing refusal in Rome to simply show us the letter? Why did the Church not publish the letter in 1960 as was asked? It doesn't add up.
I know that many are like me, who think that the evidence very reasonably points to the probability that the contents of the letter was hidden and continues to remain so because it predicts a grave dereliction of duty by the Church hierarchy, if the pope would not obey. If the merely letter predicted a pope that would live after an assassination attempt, how could Pope John judge whether it was for his own times or not, and why was 1960 such an important date for Sister Lucia? I have never heard of anyone denying Pope John's reported words after reading the letter.
You ask me who has full knowledge of these things? None of the faithful has full knowledge. Fatima followers can only speculate. I don't know how anybody can believe Russia has converted. Instead the "errors of Russia" that Our Lady of Fatima spoke of are as strong as ever, and one could very arguably say that "the errors of Russia" are now disguised by the current occupant of the Holy See and confused with Gospel of Jesus Christ! That is not at question for me. But the rest regarding the Third Secret, can only be on the basis of speculation. I wish I could trust Rome.
I know of only one baptized Catholic who has "full knowledge" of the visions of Fatima. A bishop "all dressed in white", who has been privy to the letter of Sister Lucia, has fled presumably from "fear of the wolves", and who is still arguably the pope. (The visions of Sister Lucia speak of a persecuted bishop, all dressed in white, and this is sometimes understood to be a pope, because of the dress. Benedict has notably continued to wear his white papal attire, and bears the title of "Pope Emeritus".)
I do not say that Benedict is still the pope. I doubt that he is. But if he were one of these days before he dies, to announce that he was going to consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart and invite the bishops of the world to join him, it would be to stay the least, interesting.
Rory
PS: Antonio Socci is the Italian author of a book called "The Fourth Secret of Fatima" which examines the Vatican's interpretation of the Third Secret. He is an investigative journalist who accepted the account of the Vatican. He set out to dismiss those who were grousing about how unbelievable and anti-climactic Rome's explanation was in 2002 or thereabouts. You might want to find that book.
In case there is interest. From the back cover of the book I mention above, The Fourth Secret of Fatima:
A FASCINATING INQUIRY INTO THE THEORIES AND THE TRUTHS OF THE MOST DISCONCERTING MYSTERY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
On June 26, 2000, Vatican officials (including Cardinal Bertone) released what they claim was the Third Secret of Fatima. They further said it was a prediction of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in 1981. Antonio Sicci, an acclaimed Italian journalist and television personality, originally sided with the Vatican's interpretation of the Third Secret.
Upon closer investigation of this matter, the evidence led him to the conclusion that there is another document of the Third Secret containing the actual words of Our Lady. So far, the Vatican is hiding the text while claiming that all is released.
Antonio Socci, for the first, in this book, produces the testimony of a still-living witness from the inner circle of Pope John XXIII, to prove his point. This book, by a friend of Pope Benedict XVI and former friend of Cardinal Bertone, has caused a public sensation and debate.
Loreto Publications, published in 2006, 603-239-6671, or www.loretopubs.org
David
Did you forget our discussion in the combox of THIS THREAD ???
Rory
If I had remembered writing about the Seven Sleepers, I certainly wouldn't have said that I was unfamiliar! Therefore, I am confident that I forgot. Hehe. Shoot, I don't even "remember it" now. However, thanks a lot old pal, for the proof that I once discussed it, and that my memory is failing as fast as ever!
Tomorrow is Lisa's birthday. I got her a book written by Dom Gueranger about St. Cecilia to whom she has a devotion. The book is advertised as a treatise against the lack of faith which was creeping in to Catholic society in his day regarding the extraordinary stories of the martyrs. It is intended to defend the story of St. Cecelia and many others whose lives and deaths seem hard to believe. I was kind of hoping she would let me read the book too!
Specific post-apostolic miracles are not required of a Catholic, but I note that I was skeptical about the Seven Sleepers the last time I wrote about them. Maybe Dom Gueranger will put me to shame me for incredulity?
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for your extensive and informative weekend posts—a good deal to take in and digest.
Your posts have given me the incentive to explore the issues you raised in much greater depth. Earlier today, I ordered Socci's book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, which was recommended by you. I also did a bit of online research and found a good number of free resources, including some books and booklets in PDF format (see this link).
A 260 page book, The Secret Still Hidden, by Christopher A. Ferrara particularly caught my eye. I downloaded the book and will start reading it this evening (link to pdf).
Now, a couple of questions: first, are you aware of the Vatican's official page on the 'Message of Fatima' (LINK) ???
Second, have you closely examined arguments delineated by those folk who maintain that more than one Pope has fulfilled the 'Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary' ??? (See THIS LINK for a good introduction.)
Shall end for now, but hope to return after some in depth study.
Grace and peace,
David
Man ! Reading this stuff sure makes me glad I havent jumped into Catholicism, capital 'C'. No wonder a lot of Evangelicals convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. The Rcc finally get a pope that is doing something positive and in line with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit, & you guys want to 'string him up'.
How about trying to define "heretic" by the consensus of pre-medieval Christianity when both East & West were united. The Orthodox allow divorce as a part of pastoral expediency. Pope Francis just recently made it mandatory that paedophile priests and Bishops dont get away with it anymore. Why not "string him up for that too" ?
As to ecumenism, his best friend in Argentina was an Anglican called Bishop Palmer. As you know he also hosted many Christian leaders regarding discussions around evangelism I think. Was this Satan ?
Maybe all this is the Holy Spirit attempting to bring the church into line and away from being simply an institution. Jesus said Iam am the Way, the Truth, the Life, not the Church is the Way, the Truth, the Life. Life is in a Person, not in dogmatic assertions.
There cant be 2 churches both asserting to hold the infallible truth. Either one is true or both are wrong to some degree. I prefer leniency in the catholic faith rather than making magesterial dogma a "hill" to die on.
Cheers
Dennis
David
Now, a couple of questions: first, are you aware of the Vatican's official page on the 'Message of Fatima' (LINK) ???
Rory
I had not read the page but I have been familiar with the Vatican's claims since they were made. The most important question would be whether the claim that Sister Lucia agreed with the Vatican that the papal obligation to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart had been fulfilled by Pope John Paul II.
I believe the words that Rome says she uttered were "it was accepted by heaven"? Socci's book will cover why the evidence leads to serious doubt that Sister Lucia meant what Rome says it means. I will leave the rest to Socci, but would remind you that even if the act of John Paul II did not FULFILL the specific request of Our Lady, it could still have been "accepted by heaven", and answered with the blessing of God. It is not a sin to pray other prayers, but other prayers will not gain the blessings that are promised by fulfilling the specific request of the Madonna.
David
Second, have you closely examined arguments delineated by those folk who maintain that more than one Pope has fulfilled the 'Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary' ???
Rory
Are there any today arguing that the consecrations of 1942 and 1952 by Pius XII, 1964 by Paul VI, 1982 by John Paul II, 2010 by Benedict XVI, or 2013 by Francis I, are the fulfillment of the requests of the Immmaculate Mother? My understanding is that in 1952, in a private ceremony without calling for the bishops to join him, Pope Pius XII mentioned Russia by name. All of the rest including the consecration of 1984, by John Paul II suffer from similar defects. No naming of Russia and no bishops. (Why is it so hard for them just to follow the simple instructions?) I don't think there will be any scholarly work supporting these other consecrations as the fulfillment .
You will see Socci claim in his book (p.22) that John Paul II actually broke from his prepared words to incorporate an allusion to Russia, without naming Russia: "Enlighten especially the people for which be reason of their situation you have particularly requested our consecration and offering." This would be a consecration that was "acceptable to heaven" as perhaps all of the others were. With this one, it is shortly before the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and a person of faith could reasonably attribute that blessing to this prayer of John Paul II. I do not believe a person of faith could reasonably argue that this consecration effected the conversion of Russia, or even a rollback of the "errors of Russia. If this was the consecration requested as reported by Sister Lucia, as a person of faith, I would have to break down the prophetic value of the post 1917 visions of Sister Lucy. Some would still seem amazingly accurate, the "third secret", not so much.
This doesn't get talked about enough. The inspirational short lives of young Francisco and Jacinta were an utter transformation from children who were previously very devout, from families strong in the faith, to young people with a supernatural sobriety and enduring courage, with a mission that they fulfilled in a truly apostolic fashion. Jacinta and Francisco lived to only the ages of ten and eleven respectively. They died manfully. Jacinta's tomb was opened in 1935 and again in 1952. A photograph shows her beautiful face completely incorrupt and recognizable. Sts. Jacinta and Francisco, pray for us to know our way through these confusing times, and to be guided by the Lady who you saw on the hillside in 1917.
I appreciate your interest!
Rory
Hello Rory, David, and Dennis;
My simplest response is for Dennis. As I read Catholicism, there is a strong narrative that the truth has been received and that it only needs to be developed. Before Pope Francis, I saw in Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict a desire to maintain continuity with ancient Catholicism. As such, I considered the conservative read of Vatican II to be the strongest way to evaluate the strength of Catholicism. I was familiar with criticism from SSPX and Sedavacantist folks aimed at Pope JPII and Benedict, but my general thought was that they were conservative, didn’t embrace the liberal changes done in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II,” and that this was Catholicism. Pope Francis has upset this apple cart and I do not think he thinks Catholicism is what I thought I learned Catholicism was from Catholic Answers and other places during the pontificate of JPII.
Rory asked about Constantine and tangentially about Augustine’s City of God. I do not think I have in the past suggested that the integration of Church and State were the cause of the Great Apostasy. I could have 3 years ago pointed to the Doctrine and Covenants celebrating the Constitution of the United States and suggested that while SEPARATION of Church and State does not mean what the left claims it means, there is some wisdom in this. About 3 years ago I came across an article that was important to me. I have always been uncomfortable with the idea that “this is the last dispensation.” The reason for this is that every dispensation seems to think it is the last dispensation. Not only because Christ is likely to return during THIS generation (THIS being virtually any generations according to someone), but because no dispensation ever said our shelf life is finite and we will be replaced when Bahaullah comes or when Joseph Smith comes or when Mohammad comes or when Jesus Christ comes (not as concurring King). That changed for me when I read this article:
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
I believe that Christ and His apostles knew that there would be a loss of the ability to receive public/corporate revelation. That being said, Christ came in the meridian of time when as a PERFECT, SINLESS man He was killed by God’s chosen people. This is important for the obvious need for an atonement connected with the fact that it helps me to see the rebellion in my life as a similar rejection and killing of my God. That being said, the culture into which Christ was born and which existed through centuries including the feudal system in Europe was not conducive to prophet/leaders. The vast majority of Catholic leaders were good men who largely succeeded at not becoming corrupted by the power they possessed, but not all. Society COULD NOT check the power of the men who stumbled because the radical inequality of men was largely a given. The above article argues that over time the “God is no respecter of persons” taught be the Bible and the Catholic Church lead to a society in which absolute power might corrupt, but followers would check leaders and prevent future apostasy even while acknowledging that the single leader possesses a special ability to communicate God’s words and needed to be followed with some deference.
So, church and state integrated is not as big of issue as the RADICAL equality that we now largely embrace as a society. I am not sure if this radical equality will not overthrow God’s Prophet, but my faith tells me it will not (and I do not think it unreasonable to believe this).
Cont…
I only have a little to say on the message of Fatima. I think I was familiar with this before Rory shared it with me long ago. I was unfamiliar with the groups that say the third secret was fulfilled. That being said, if I was convinced that the Bishops and the Pope consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I do not yet see the era of peace or the non-spread of the anti-religion / anti-faith ideas prevalent in the communist structures. I am not sure how these structures appeared in the early 20th century, but my impression of them is that they believe “religion is the opiate of the people” and must be suppressed. I think by number of adherents, this ERROR is spreading.
My hope is that in general faith is increasing because people filled with faith are more filled. But, the number of very filled faithful people does seem to be diminishing as a general rule.
Charity, TOm
Dennis
Man !
Rory
It says you posted at 5:51 in the morning, Dennis. Maybe you were a little bleary-eyed? I have written things that I later regretted. I am sure we all have done that. No big deal. Or, maybe you should re-word your expression of opposition to what "you guys", in your opinion, are doing metaphorically to Pope Francis. You did intend your repeated "string him up" accusations to be taken metaphorically, I hope? I trust you admit we would refrain from murdering Pope Francis, given the opportunity.
The above said...I don't want to ignore what follows your exclamation, "Man !", if you remain pleased with what you wrote after that, and would appreciate some precise attention to what you posted. It's a long weekend. Say the word and I will try to give your ideas some attention.
Rory
Hi Rory,
Of course I was speaking metaphorically & luckily it was night here in Australia & not 5am ! I've got more pressing things that could keep me awake actually...
I will expand my assertion that somewhere in medieval church history, the Holy Spirit was thwarted from "teaching what was to be handed down" and the Church became more preoccupied with politics and unnecessary dogma because it believed it had the right simply because it was instituted by Christ.
This I believe caused the Church to start squabbling over secondary issues and thats why I believe there are divisions in theology between East & West. There was 1 Apostolic source, if due to communication & distance in the Roman Empire , & politcal factions, the Church emphasised different theology they should have come up with a way to accept the differences rather than throwing anathemas at eachother.
For example, the Donatist controversy. I can't really accept the official conclusion. Or the dormition of Our Lady. Does it really matter if she ascended or not ?
This is the only way I can make sense of 2 wings of the Church claiming to be the "only one". As to Fatima & the Marian visions, how do we know those kids werent co-erced in some way to repeat official dogma. I read some articles where they were threatened & beaten ! Funny, I never read of Biblical prophets or Apostles being threatened or beaten, except by their enemies!
If one of the messages at Fatima related to the conversion of Russia, could it not be happening now ? The orthodox church is growing again.
Also, thanks Tom for your observations.
Cheers
Dennis
And lastly, what sort of witness is it to the world, after seeing numerous media accounts of Catholicisms lack of response to paedophilia, to now hear of dogmatic political squabbling over Pope Francis ? Seriously ! If things keep going this way, the church will be a museum !
Dennis
Reading this stuff sure makes me glad I havent jumped into Catholicism, capital 'C'. No wonder a lot of Evangelicals convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. The Rcc finally get a pope that is doing something positive and in line with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit, & you guys want to 'string him up'.
Rory
The first thing that should probably be addressed is "you guys". Of the four of us who are participating in this conversation, only one is currently Catholic, me. Like you, Dave and Tom are not Catholic, but they are interested in developments within the Catholic Church. If anybody here should be talking about a collective "you guys", it would not be any of you three, but me.
Secondly, as a Traditional Catholic and a former evangelical, I can see the difficulty that Evangelicals face in their exits from Evangelicalism. I cannot condemn those who, leaving a belief system that denies that there is one true visible church, chooses Eastern Orthodoxy. I do not know that the numbers are tilted heavily on the side of Evangelicals choosing Orthodoxy over Rome.
Your comments regarding Francis, that Catholics..."finally get a pope that is doing something positive and in line with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit", seems to need some explanation and evidence. I doubt that this claim is supportable. It does illustrate that those who favor Pope Francis, are typically critical of every pope that preceded him, even his immediate predecessors.
If Pope Francis' teachings about divorce and remarriage, the death penalty, homosexual unions, and the value of other religions are true, what does it say about "pre-Franciscan" Catholicism for almost 2,000 years? It would have been awkward to have been a Catholic before 2013, and much moreso before Vatican II, if you currently think that Francis is "finally...a pope that is doing something positive, etc.". I don't know how or why such a "Catholic" would have stayed in the Catholic Church under any of the 260 plus failed papacies that never seem to find the right note, whose popes never see things properly, for generation after generation, until Pope Francis finally succeeds.
Dennis
How about trying to define "heretic" by the consensus of pre-medieval Christianity when both East & West were united. The Orthodox allow divorce as a part of pastoral expediency. Pope Francis just recently made it mandatory that paedophile priests and Bishops dont get away with it anymore. Why not "string him up for that too" ?
Rory
So you think that Pope Francis' teachings and policies are molded on a model that pre-dates the schism of East and West? I would hear you out, but that is not my impression of those centuries.
One of my best Traditional Catholic friends is divorced. The Catholic Church has no difficulty in recognizing that marriages can fail and end up with a civil decree that acknowledges the necessity for a permanent separation. Oftentimes it will be discovered that one of the parties had an impediment to marriage. In that event, a decree of annulment is given showing that they were never married and that they are now free to marry since they are not attempting to break asunder what "God hath joined together."
Do the Orthodox teach that someone who is validly joined in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, may separate and and then be validly joined in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony with someone else? Jesus forbade that explicitly in the Gospel. The august teaching of Christ on marriage is that it is an image of Christ and His church. I suspect you have misunderstood the Orthodox position.
Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament of divine institution. It would stagger one's faith to try to believe that God joins a couple together and then breaks the bond while they both live, and joins them together in the same way with other parties. The problem with divorce and remarriage in non-Catholic societies is that most people won't even understand that a marriage is a sacrament in the first place. In that event, the Church can make a determination that a couple never married sacramentally, that God never joined them together indissolubly. I would hope that the Orthodox churches don't presume that the Orthodox church has the authority to "break asunder what God has joined together"!
As for Pope Francis initiating policies that will effectively put an end to pedophile cover-ups, I wish I could be as confident as you are that we are now done with this practice. But if you are right, I am thankful. Nobody is wrong about everything. Your asking why we (I) don't "string him up" for his public opposition to pedophile cover-ups was what prompted me to delay my reply until I questioned whether you were quite happy with this post. It seems unfair to accuse those of us who have doctrinal differences with Pope Francis, of wishing him unwell should he succeed in purging the Church of pedophiles.
Dennis
As to ecumenism, his best friend in Argentina was an Anglican called Bishop Palmer. As you know he also hosted many Christian leaders regarding discussions around evangelism I think. Was this Satan ?
Rory
Ecumenism? Dialogue on the basis of equal claims to be the one true church. I am against that.
Was this Satan? Do I try to assure my non-Catholic friends and acquaintances that their decisions to be separated from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church are without serious consequences? I guess you could say it was "Satan" if that was how I tried to make them think. I would rather just say it was sinful. The same could be said for his "discussions around evangelism". As pope, he has repeatedly spoken out against Catholics who try to convert friends, neighbors, or on a mission field. He has labelled this apostolic activity with the pejorative term, proselytism.
I don't expect you to agree, but that is because you deny that the Catholic Church is One, Holy, and Apostolic as well. It makes sense for non-Catholics to believe it can't be important where you go to church. But if you believe what the Catholic Church teaches about its own institution by Christ, it is a sin against the faith and a sin against your neighbor to entertain the notion of putting the Catholic Church on equal footing with any other religion.
Dennis, I don't think you can argue with that reasoning. Traditional Catholic ecclesiology is essentially opposed to ecumenism! Don't you agree? I think you need to argue, and maybe Francis and the ecumenical popes would need to argue, that the Catholic Church is not alone in rightful claims to authority from God. I think we should agree that ecumenism denies that any church should be identified alone as being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Do you believe that "true ecumenism" is compatible between parties where one of the churches makes exclusivist claims such as that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church?
Dennis
Maybe all this is the Holy Spirit attempting to bring the church into line and away from being simply an institution. Jesus said Iam am the Way, the Truth, the Life, not the Church is the Way, the Truth, the Life. Life is in a Person, not in dogmatic assertions.
Rory
I want to think about this some more before posting (if time allows). Anyway, thanks for your recent note and for all your thoughts. I enjoy "dialoguing" about these things. If I weren't Catholic I would be a natural ecumenical! Heh. I did not know you were from Australia. That explains your hours of posting. Anyway, as you say,
Cheers
Rory
Dennis
Maybe all this is the Holy Spirit attempting to bring the church into line and away from being simply an institution. Jesus said Iam am the Way, the Truth, the Life, not the Church is the Way, the Truth, the Life. Life is in a Person, not in dogmatic assertions.
Rory
Life is in a Person Who made dogmatic assertions. Jesus told the Apostles to teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you." It sounds kind of dogmatic. I do not believe revelation supports the idea we can have Christ and not His Church and vice versa. It isn't a choice between one or the other. It is a choice between both or neither.
"To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church..."
Ep. 3:8-10
Dennis
There cant be 2 churches both asserting to hold the infallible truth. Either one is true or both are wrong to some degree. I prefer leniency in the catholic faith rather than making magesterial dogma a "hill" to die on.
Rory
The first two clauses are incontrovertible. Agreed.
I doubt that you believe firmly that there is magesterial dogma that is infallibly defined and revealed to be true. I don't have reasonable doubts about Catholic teachings, and I would surely hope I would be willing to die if it came to that, then deny one of these truths to save my life.
I do not think the follower of Christ has the liberty to decide "leniency" in the Catholic faith. Who are we to make a judgment that the true Church should discontinue teaching the Apostles doctrine, and stop insisting on the observance of all things whatsoever Christ commanded them?
As I implied in my first words on this post, I think you say what you do about "magesterial dogma" because you are not convinced that the dogma is correct. Is that not true? Many Catholics make a deliberate "act of faith" daily. The following is typical:
"O my God, I firmly believe whatsoever the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church requires me to believe; I believe it because thou hast revealed it to her, thou who art the very truth."
Surely you can see why those of us who believe like that could never be in favor of "leniency in the catholic faith". How would one decide what to be lenient about? It seems like none of those things which Christ commanded the Apostles to teach their converts to observe could be expendable. And I don't think that is what you are advocating. Surely, the reason you wouldn't die on a hill for magesterial dogma, is because you don't have confidence in dogma that is magesterial to begin with. You probably think "the magesterium has exceeded the teachings of Christ to the Apostles. That is probably also why you are for what you call "lenience in the catholic faith."
Different beliefs lead to different practices, and I appreciate that if I have properly discerned your beliefs, that you are consistent with your beliefs. But shame on you, if you believe like me, and others who would make that act of faith, and think that you or me or a pope has the authority to be able to decide what to throw out and what to keep. May God lead us on our respective journeys.
Respectfully,
Rory
PS: It is Memorial Day for our countrymen who died in World War II in the US tomorrow. A national holiday. Maybe I can review your second post.
Hey Dennis...
I look forward to addressing your second post. Interesting theory. You might have noticed a comment I made here somewhere...that I habitually judge my comments on..."What would the Mormons say?"
Do you think your theory about East and West can escape charges of Apostasy...loss of apostolic authority...continuation of valid Sacraments?
Rory
Dennis
I will expand my assertion that somewhere in medieval church history, the Holy Spirit was thwarted from "teaching what was to be handed down" and the Church became more preoccupied with politics and unnecessary dogma because it believed it had the right simply because it was instituted by Christ.
Rory
I do not think it is quite correct to say that "the Church" became "more preoccupied with politics and unnecessary dogma." I do know what you mean, but it seems important to distinguish the acts of the Catholic Church from acts of churchmen which are at variance with the received teachings of the Church.
The Church teaches that bishops and even the pope can commit grave sins and can lose their souls. Does this mean that we can attribute sinful acts of her prelates to the Church? No. She has already forewarned the faithful that this can happen, and when it does happen whether it be through politics or pedophilia, the faithful still love "the Church" recognizing that it is she who condemns the sinful acts of those who once may have been her loyal children.
Going back to the "act of faith" that I mentioned previously, I am confident that the Catholic Church disapproves of unnecessarily provocative behaviors and gestures by popes as well as prelates in both East and West. I am not familiar with those apparently scandalous times as you might be. I do not hold that the Church of the Apostles teaches that scandal or schism can break the unity of that Church.
Obviously, I hold that the primacy of Rome is the key to determining which body of believers should be followed after the split between East and West. I think it should be noted that there are many eastern churches that agree with that, and are in communion with Rome. As you pointed out earlier, one can't believe in both. If you don't believe in one of them, you are forced to believe in the authority of no particular visible church, like the Protestants.
This is what fuels Mormonism and all Restoration movements. The LDS thanks the Protestants for supposedly proving an apostasy of the only two churches with any reasonable authoritative claim, and unlike the reformers, they take apostasy to its logical conclusion. There needs to be a church. One church. The reformed churches are not an option. There is no historical continuity with the Apostles, no priesthood, and only a Restoration of what was lost will do. If I were not convinced that Orthodoxy or Catholicism were true, I would probably be what I call a Restorationist-in-Waiting...and lonely.
continued from above...
Rory
I am always encouraged if some Protestant or Restorationist converts to Orthodoxy. That is a jump in the right direction and who knows that the now ancient division breach may close and wounds be healed, and we embrace each other as brothers. We have the same Sacraments. This is always possible. Did you know that in some of the Eastern rites that are in communion with Rome, that they are permitted to exclude the filioque, in their recitation of the Creed? I do not know how long this has been permitted.
It seems reasonable to entertain the possibility that on both sides, politics led to hatreds, and lack of God's charity led to ferociousness about dogma and that made division attractive to many. I think we must also acknowledge that good, charitable men on both sides tried to heal the wounds and restore unity. But the devil scored a temporary victory.
Dennis
This I believe caused the Church to start squabbling over secondary issues and thats why I believe there are divisions in theology between East & West. There was 1 Apostolic source, if due to communication & distance in the Roman Empire , & politcal factions, the Church emphasised different theology they should have come up with a way to accept the differences rather than throwing anathemas at eachother.
Rory
I tend to agree with that. I won't repeat my argument, but I distinguish between "the Church" and sinful ministers.
The following is in the context of the squabbling over secondary issues that Dennis emphasizes above...
Dennis
For example, the Donatist controversy. I can't really accept the official conclusion. Or the dormition of Our Lady. Does it really matter if she ascended or not ?
Rory
I don't see the Donatist controversy as a problem between East and West. Wasn't that pretty much limited to Africa and well before the divide began to develop between East and West. Are you saying that if I became Orthodox I would have to get baptized and confirmed? I thought they accepted our "schismatic" sacraments as we do theirs. I am surprised if you would take the side of the Donatists.
To brush up a little I was just reading about how St. Augustine might be credited with the conclusion of the controversy. I thought he dealt effectively with the Donatist claim of taking their beliefs from St. Cyprian. Augustine points out that Cyprian would not have threatened the unity of the Church over the issue. I should think we would applaud both Augustine and Cyprian for that. Augustine also applies an ad hominem argument when he reveals evidence that Donatism seemed motivated less by genuine theological zeal for their beliefs about the nullity of heretical baptism and more about political ambition and wealth. This would explain why several of the prominent early "Donatist" bishops were actually traditors (those who cooperated with the confiscation of church goods) during the Diocletian persecution. By definition, a traditor could not be a Donatist, but they could pretend to be. If that were the case, many Donatist sacraments would be nullified, according to their own theology.
-------------
I think it is significant to the Western Church that our Lady was assumed in to Heaven. There is rich theological development that follows from this unique privilege of the Mother of God.
I am satisfied that the Dormition vs. the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin could be no obstacle to a reunion between East and West. Indeed, I don't see any difference except with the titles that we use. The following is from an Orthodox explanation of the Dormition:
"For three days they did not depart from the place of burial, praying and chanting Psalms. Through the wise providence of God, the Apostle Thomas was not to be present at the burial of the Mother of God. Arriving late on the third day at Gethsemane, he lay down at the tomb and with bitter tears asked that he might be permitted to look once more upon the Mother of God and bid her farewell. The Apostles out of heartfelt pity for him decided to open the grave and permit him the comfort of venerating the holy relics of the Ever-Virgin Mary. Having opened the grave, they found in it only the grave wrappings and were thus convinced of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven."
Dennis
This is the only way I can make sense of 2 wings of the Church claiming to be the "only one". As to Fatima & the Marian visions, how do we know those kids werent co-erced in some way to repeat official dogma. I read some articles where they were threatened & beaten ! Funny, I never read of Biblical prophets or Apostles being threatened or beaten, except by their enemies!
If one of the messages at Fatima related to the conversion of Russia, could it not be happening now ? The orthodox church is growing again.
Rory
The children of Fatima were kidnapped before the appearance of our Lady at the Cova on Aug. 13, 1917:
"On August 13, an immense crowd went to the Cova da Iria. But Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta were not there: they had been kidnapped by the mayor of Villa-Nova de Ourem, Arthur d'Oliveira."
---Fatima 1917-2017, The Message For Our Times, by Fr. Bertrand LaBouche, Angelus Press, p.75 (2017)
[Dave...that is the book I talked about and one of the speakers at that conference I attended.]
Hardly anyone is even aware of the militant hostility that the Catholic Church faced over much of Europe in 1917. In Spain it would lead to the torture and slaughter of thousands of priests and nuns and obscene desecrations of beautiful churches all over Spain. Nobody cares. It was initiated with pamphleteering like the "The Association of Civil Marriage and the Portuguese Federation of Free Thought", which is quoted by Fr. LaBouche, also on p.75. Spaniards probably did know much about Fatima at this time, but this particular pamphlet was certainly written by someone aroused by the events reported of Fatima.
Let us free ourselves, all of us! Let us tear from our spirits not only the stupid credulousness of vulgar and ridiculous frauds like that of Fatima, but more especially any belief in the supernatural, in a so-called omnipotent God, a fantasy of the imagination of deceivers, to reach their ends and lock up in a box the ingenuousness of the people! Citizens, long live the Republic, long live freedom!"
This continuing event was seen, and rightly so, as a threat to the militant atheistic government that had installed itself in Lisbon and all over Portugal. This is why the children would be kidnapped by the authorities. First they were offered money if they would retract their story. Then they were offered death if they wouldn't retract. Neither money nor death could tempt these simple children who were living a truly elevated supernatural life of the first order.
The contrast between these messages about the entire world and their eternal repercussions, and the humility of the instruments, is striking...Is this not a troubling disproportion? No, because it is precisely to manifest all the more clearly their divine origin. 'The foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise' (1 Cor. 1:27). The more beautiful the work is, the more the weakness of the instrument reveals the skill of its user."
---ibid. p.77
to be continued...
continued from above...
Rory
Here is how the author relates how the children responded to the kidnapping:
After trying to get the three children to retract by offering them pieces of gold, the mayor of Villa-Nova de Ourem tried threatening them with death: "We will fry you in boiling oil!" Lucia and her little cousins believed him, but remained unshaken, for they did not wish to lie...One by one, they were led to what they truly thought was to be their death. Formally, these heroic children were martyrs. Francisco, in particular, acted like a real little man, as Sister Lucia tells in her fourth Memoir: when we recited the Rosary in prison, he saw that one of the prisoners had knelt down with his beret on his head. He went over to him and told him: "If you wish to pray, you must take off your beret." And the poor man, without further ado, gave it to him and he placed it on a bench next to his hat. While Jacinta was being interrogated, he said to me with the greatest joy and peace: "If they kill us as they say, we will be in Heaven soon! How good it is! I do not mind!" And after a moment of silence: "May God help Jacinta not to be afraid. I am going to say a Hail Mary for her!"
---ibid. p.77,78
The fourth Memoir was written many years later and I guess you could say that Sr. Lucia kept up the farce until 2005, when she died. Why would they make something like that up? The two younger children died
peacefully as they had predicted, while Sr. Lucia lived a long life as predicted, and they all stayed true to a lie that was concocted by who that would imagine to be advancing the cause of the Church by making up a crazy story for children to tell? What threat from church authorities could have allowed such peace to these children who if that were the case, were exposed to threats of death or beatings no matter what they did. It would be truly unbelievable that such a crazy and unwarranted hoax could have been pulled off by violent coercion of three little children to "lie for Jesus", who never betrayed themselves or their despicable ecclesiastical conspirators! Maybe they simply saw the Blessed Virgin Mary on the 13th of the month from May to October of 2017?
Post a Comment