How Not To Read A Papal Encyclical
by Tom Piatak
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
The overarching flaw of the neocons is arrogance. It was arrogance that led them to believe that we could remake the Mideast when we invaded Iraq. It was arrogance that led Catholic neocons to lecture John Paul II on Catholic just-war teaching as they lobbied the Vatican to endorse our disastrous invasion of Iraq. And George Weigel displayed a comparable arrogance when he penned a reaction to Benedict XVI’s social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the same day it was released, claiming that the passages he agreed with were “obviously” written by Benedict, while those he disagreed with were just as clearly written by unnamed Vatican bureaucrats. Although Weigel is a papal biographer, he seems to think he is a pope, possessed of his own personal Magisterium. It is one thing for a Catholic, after serious reflection, to respectfully disagree with a noninfallible papal teaching; it is another to flippantly dismiss an encyclical as a “duck-billed platypus” and “the warbling of an untuned piccolo” less than 24 hours after reading it.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Bill Wilder on 8 July 2009:
The Washington Post had a story this morning on this statement from the Pope. It reduced the discussion to “left wing” v. “conservatives” and that Benedict is “to the left” of Obama and other Demos in the US. No real insight to what he wrote, of course. It mentioned Wiegel’s claim that the “left wing” economic statements were to assuage “left-leaning bureaucrats.”
2 Comment by Tom Piatak on 8 July 2009:
Bill:
In defense of the Washington Post, it can at least plead ignorance of Catholicism. Weigel has no such excuse for reading the encyclical as he would any political document.
3 Comment by robert on 8 July 2009:
“Although Weigel is a papal biographer, he seems to think he is a pope, possessed of his own personal Magisterium.”
Mr. Piatak,
You are one of the few writers who mentions Mr. Weigel with the correct indefinite article — referring to him as “a” papal biographer instead of “THE” papal biographer. I was also humored by his higher criticism of exactly how encyclicals are generated. He presumes they are generated like pre-emptive wars –1)a crises 2) access to authority 3) present your plan 4)form the intelligence around your plan 5) anticipate and then assasinate dissent and 5) when all else fails say it was a failure of nerve on behalf of the “gentle soul” of the authority who was duped by your lies.
One nice thing about George’s recent defense of decadence is that his arrogance has matured and he is no longer simply a clever man but a certified water bearer and life-guard for the Neocon-swimming hole and no longer ashamed to say it. Good for him, at least he has now acquired a certain honesty, dependability and ‘loyal soldier’ stature for his handlers.
4 Comment by John Seiler on 8 July 2009:
Concerning Weigel, I’m reminded of a joke about Hans Kueng, author of “Infallible? An Unresolved Inquiry” and other critiques of the papacy.
The Joke:
After Pope John Paul II died, the conclave met and first chose Hans Kueng as the next pope. He declined, saying, “Then I would no longer be infallible.”
5 Comment by Rob on 8 July 2009:
Weigel….typical Beltway mentality even if he is from Baltimore. Weigel wants the pope to be a leading voice in the public square and bashes Catholics who do not-and then Weigel ignores the Holy Father when he says something that the neocon does not agree with. Iraq? Weigel keeps insisting it was a just war while the pope, just like the last one, says otherwise. It often seems that the city of man is more important to Weigel than the city of God; that the GOP is more important to him than God.
6 Comment by robert on 8 July 2009:
“It often seems that the city of man is more important to Weigel than the city of God; that the GOP is more important to him than God.”
Rob,
I don’t know about his ultimate priorities in life but I think you have hit upon the niche market he has discovered in journalism and advertising. It consists of two parts advertising for every one part journalism. The formula is something like this. Portray (I should have said advertise)yourself as an expert on some matter of grave importance –biography, politics,religion, marriage and family, evolution, etc.. , mention the numerous conferences you have attended all across the world concerning these very grave matters, mention the names of all the people who ever said hello to you at these crowded conventions (or even in the airport terminals) and the various conversations you had in passing through these gaggles of do gooders, (the wiser ones are either looking for a pre-conference cocktail saying nothing or in the airport lounge drowning their despair, one should simply ignore these types as unpatriotic, pathetics or hopeless, paleocons)provide bits and pieces of inside information you obtained from these chance encounters, and then say something like “because of all of this that I, and I alone know, I am reluctant to disagree or discourage any poor fool who is trying in life but the facts are simply other than what the ordinary poor fool could ever understand without my assistance.” Then quickly impose your verdict on the poor fool you are writing about or praise the wise folks you are writing for and… presto!!! You have morphed from an ordinary working stiff or pedant into an authority figure!! And having presented your exclsuive expert’s opnion in a very grave matter you collect your sophist’s fee and move on to the next issue of very grave importance to prepare another and similar brief. Having learned from this expert experience you add somthing such as, “Please, no questions!! I am an expert and a very busy man. I will be meeting Mr.Big Whig in an hour and we have very grave matters to discuss,I also have a commencement speech to prepare for Our Lady of Greatness,a small liberal arts college created by me and my colleagues for children in search of meaning in the public square, also a column due for The Great Dinky in Grey, a review for a new book on Churchhill, etc, and so forth..and so on …Very important you know, I don’t like it, takes me away from my dear wife and home… but these are very grave times….etc… and so forth … “
7 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 8 July 2009:
I’m 100% in agreement with Mr. Piatak. Wiegal and Novak are ravenous wolves pretending to be sheep. I won’t comment on the encyclical itself until I have a chance to both read it and meditate on it. But my approach is this. The encyclical is the official teaching of the Church – even in its fallible aspects. I have a serious obligation to view any such teaching with the presumption that it is right and any opinions I may hold to the contrary are probably wrong. If there are any instances where I think my opinions are right and the encyclical wrong, I have an obligation in prudence to keep my own opinions to myself and see what later developments may bring. If one starts with the “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church” of the Credo, it is hard to go too far wrong.
8 Comment by Robert on 8 July 2009:
“Wiegal and Novak are ravenous wolves pretending to be sheep.”
This was no doubt true at one time. These two have at times been wolves dressed in sheepskin. Wiegel, however,in the last ten years has assumed the new and more dishonest disguise of a wolf dressed in shepherd’s skin.
9 Comment by John Willson on 9 July 2009:
Tom,
Wonderful insight. Arrogance (Pride) is almost as deadly a sin as Envy, which is its flip side. And Robert @6: Bottle that! It’s a hoot!
10 Comment by John Willson on 9 July 2009:
Tom,
Wonderful insight. Arrogance (Pride) is almost as deadly a sin as Envy, which is its flip side. And Robert @6: Bottle that! It’s a hoot!
11 Comment by John Willson on 9 July 2009:
Robert @6: That’s marvelous. I think you should bottle it. And Tom, the insight that Arrogance is the neocon earmark is very important; it’s the flip side of Envy, as deadly a sin as one can imagine.
12 Comment by John Willson on 9 July 2009:
I’m sorry, but this technology is acting up on me, and I was just trying to make one little point. It got away from me.
13 Comment by Fr. David A. Bosnich on 9 July 2009:
It is not surprising that Mr. Weigel’s column appeared on National Review Online. This is the same magazine which greeted the Mater et Magistra encyclical of Pope John XXIII with “Mater si, Magistra non”. The late William F. Buckley Jr. was the original cafeteria Catholic, and this long before any neoconservative entered the movement. Worshipping at the altar of laissez faire captitalism is a mistake that both libertarians and neoconservatives make. In this new encyclical Pope Benedict writes that the “sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and liberties.” These relationships of utility are what Fredric Bastiat referred to as “harmony of interests”. Unlike the Holy Father, libertarian Bastiat argued that they were sufficient to ensure justice. The Eastern Catholic philopsopher Vladimir Solovyov, in tune with Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII, countered Bastiat by observing that men are not a colony of ants. They must know that they are doing good and desire to do good. Social justice will not occur automatically or accidentally. Nothing would prevent the anarchist who wishes to destroy society and the policeman who is sent to arrest him from establishing a harmony of interests between themselves! Read the Popes and Solvyov, not agnostics like Von Mises and Hayek.
14 Comment by Robert on 9 July 2009:
Father,
You are correct in what you say about NRO. Mr. Weigel’s columns, however, are also on the pages of Newsweek, and Catholic diocesan newspapers across the country. I wish we could say he was a mere spokesman for the gaggle of goofs at NRO, but the truth is otherwise and we Catholics have alot to learn about the order in our own house before we can start the Herculean task of cleaning stalls over at NRO.
The effort should be in understanding the teaching of our authentic Catholic teachers like the Holy Father and those in communion with him, and not teachers, like Mr. Weigel, who line their right pocket with Catholic contributions and their left pockets by providing theological air support and grazing,ground fire for the neo-cons. Let him speak for them if he desire, but don’t doing it under the disguise of representing the Catholic voice.
15 Comment by Jas Murphy on 10 July 2009:
The WSJ today has an op-ed on the proper way for conservatives to read this papal work. The rest of this is just blather. The most alarming thing, however, about the encyclical is the call for more “global governance” of capitalism. Just what is not needed, more cosmocrats inserting themselves in private affairs.
16 Comment by robert on 10 July 2009:
Yes, I agree with you Mr. Murphy, Father Sirico’s presentation of the encyclical in today’s WSJ is much better than MR. Weigel’s neo-con blather.
The best thing, however is to simply read the encyclical first and not trust any of the commentators. Your own comment for instance saying,”The most alarming thing, however, about the encyclical is the call for more “global governance” of capitalism.” is out of context if one has not read the thing itself.
17 Comment by Fr. David A. Bosnich on 10 July 2009:
Fr. Sirico’s column includes praise of the two libertarians–Bastiat and Hayek–whom I mentioned in my previous post. These men’s thinking was radically defective from a Catholic standpoint. Father still believes that voluntary exchange will ensure justice when not only this encyclical but the entire Catholic social doctrine says otherwise.
18 Comment by Mark Higdon on 10 July 2009:
@17 “Father still believes that voluntary exchange will ensure justice…”
Having met and broken bread with the man–and having read his column in re Caritas in Veritate–I consider this statement a hyperbolic and simplistic misrepresentation of Fr. Sirico’s worldview. I believe it more accurate to say he believes that voluntary exchange offers the best odds to justice; but without a true Christian ethos in the exchange, all bets are off. Based on extensive reading of his works, and on personal contact with him, that is how I would characterize his worldview.
19 Comment by J Meng on 11 July 2009:
@14: Robert, you said, “The effort should be in understanding the teaching of our authentic Catholic teachers like the Holy Father and those in communion with him,…” Ratzinger/Benedict XVI denies the nature of dogmatic truth, holding to the philosophically absurd notion that dogmatic truth can never be expressed adequately at any one point in time; that each expression of dogma is necessarily “conditioned” by the historical circumstances in which it was pronounced (This idea was condemned by Vatican I, Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, The Oath Against Modernism, and Pius XII’s Humani Generis). Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was the periti at the Vatican II Revolution who conceived a new ecclesiology by his insertion into Lumen Gentium of the term, “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”, as well as in all other non-Catholic churches. The Popes before Vatican II taught that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. One of the consequences of this novelty is that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI teaches an ecclesiology of “full” and “partial” communion, which furnishes the false ecumenism of Vatican II with its guiding principles. This is why Ratzinger/Benedict XVI rejects the “ecumenism of return” which one will find in Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has refused to seek the conversion of the Jews. They have their Old Covenant which was not superseded by the New. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was the broker for the Joint Declaration on Doctrine of Justification of October 1999, wherein Luther’s condemned propositions were found acceptable by the Conciliarists. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI teaches us by his actions, also. He blasphemes God repeatedly by entering into places of false worship (actions that are proscribed by the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, a proscription that has injunctions dating back to Apostolic times) and esteeming them as “sacred” and as “jewels” that “stand out on the face of the earth.” He embraces Vatican II’s definiton of “religious liberty” as he praises the nonexistent ability of false religions to “contribute” to the “betterment” of nations in the world. According to Ratzinger, a member of a false religion can be saved in it. Of course, these heresies have been condemned by pre-Vatican II popes. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI endorses the “separation of Church and State,” a thesis called absolutely false by Pope St. Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February, 11, 1906. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has long rejected the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called New Theology”. He is a disciple of Heidegger, Blondel, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac,and Hegel. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI teaches that Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes is a “countersyllabus of errors”. In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Ratzinger declares it to be “…an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” He is a promoter of that Protestant-Masonic-Modernist abomination the Novus Ordo Missae. And now, his latest attempt at bringing about a truly secular world, his Caritas in Veritate. In this latest, there is no mention of the Catholic doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King. No, not one word, but Ratzinger has great trust in the United Nations. The list could go on, but by what has been listed here, I hope every true Catholic can see that Ratzinger/Benedict is no “authentic Catholic teacher.”
20 Comment by robert on 11 July 2009:
MR. Meng,
Thank you for this rather long list. I have not studied the Holy Fathers private works to the extent that you have but I will print this litany of objections and use it from time to time for future reference.I will only say that it is often a wonder to me why Christ invited men instead of angels to go and teach all nations. One of my favorite writers asserted that one mark of the church is that it manages to continue in existense in spite of the knavish embecility of men who do everything in their power to destroy Her both from within and without. I sincerely do not have this opinion of Pope Benedict, Archbishop LeFevre, Cardinal Hoyos, Bishop Fellay and many others. I am starting to hold this opinion about those who want to live alone in the world without a rule, without the humility of obedience, without ends, men described by the old pagan, Aristotle, as being either a beast or a god. And described by St. Benedict as Gyrovagues –folks who live off the Church but cannot submit themselves to — even reservedly.
21 Comment by John Willson on 11 July 2009:
I wonder how Mr Meng would have gotten along in the early Church, before it had had a chance to build up all the dogmatic points he raises? Pronouncing anathemas on the Holy Father is the ultimate protestant act.
22 Comment by J Meng on 11 July 2009:
@21: Mr. Willson, please, point out where I pronounced anathemas on the “Holy Father”. I merely cited the teachings and actions of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, which are a matter of public record. All of which have been condemned by previous Ecumenical Councils or Papal Encyclicals. Therefore, these teachings and actions are not Catholic. Apparently, you don’t know the Catholic Faith or you wouldn’t be implying that I am a Protestant.
23 Comment by David Collins on 11 July 2009:
“…I hope every true Catholic can see that Ratzinger/Benedict is no ‘authentic Catholic teacher.’”
I’ll be damned! Reckon I ain’t no true Catholic then.
24 Comment by Sean Scallon on 11 July 2009:
Efforts to blame “bureacrats” or the “burecracy” for the words that either the Holy Father or the U.S. Council of Bishops speaks is par for the course for neocon Catholics. “It’s not the man. It’s the people around them.” If Weigel and others like him truly believe that such encyclicals or joint statements are truly the product of behind-the-doors political wrangling, then that doesn’t say much for the infallibility of the Pope nor the authority of the Bishops, which these people seem to like the flout whenever they say something they don’t like to hear. I think these learned and inspired know exactly what they think and why and don’t need interpreters or explainers.
25 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 12 July 2009:
Mr. Meng, I’m not Dr. Willson, but I’ll answer your question. Apparently, you have a little trouble with logic. You write, “please, point out where I pronounced anathemas on the ‘Holy Father.’” Yet then you turn around and say that “All of [the teachings and actions of the Holy Father that you listed] have been condemned by previous Ecumenical Councils or Papal Encyclicals.” In other words, they are anathema.
If you’re going to pronounce anathemas, at least have the honesty to admit that that’s what you’re doing.
You also seem to have a little trouble with grasping the plain meanings of words. Dr. Willson wasn’t “implying” that you are a Protestant; he stated that your action is “the ultimate protestant act.” There are indeed many who engage in such “protestant acts” who believe themselves, as you do, to be more Catholic than the Pope.
The only problem, of course, is that Our Lord appointed Saint Peter and his successors as the head of the Church, not J Meng.
26 Comment by Mark Higdon on 12 July 2009:
@25 “The only problem, of course, is that Our Lord appointed Saint Peter and his successors as the head of the Church…”
Ironic how Mr. Richert refers to this as a “problem.”
Even though some of St. Peter’s successors have engaged in scandal, error and outright heresy, Holy Mother Church remains the One and only means to Salvation. Hence, one of the great mysteries of our faith: From all eternity, God surely knows what He is doing, even if some of those He delegates contravene His Divine Will.
Being head of the Church and being wrong are not mutually exclusive. Great saints have taken popes to the woodshed. I would no more include Meng in the former category than would he himself. I merely point out precedent.
27 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 13 July 2009:
Mr. Higdon, if you “would no more include Meng in the former category than would he himself,” then you aren’t “point[ing] out precedent.”
As for my “ironic” comment, it’s not ironic at all, as the full sentence (rather than your truncation) makes clear. Caustic, perhaps; sarcastic, certainly. But any discussion of Holy Mother Church apart from the men that God has chosen to lead Her is abstract at best and likely to lead some who are not great saints to believe that they can discern God’s Will for Holy Mother Church better than the men whom God has chosen to lead and guide Her.
28 Comment by Bruce on 13 July 2009:
When did the Lord appoint Saint Peter and his successors as the head of the Church?
29 Comment by J Meng on 13 July 2009:
@25: Mr. Richert, by diverting everyones’ attention to me as “more than Catholic than the Pope”, you failed to address the facts that I laid out to indicate that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not an authentic Catholic teacher. If you have a problem with that, then show us how they are Catholic. Yes, they were condemned by popes or councils before Vatican II. So, in that sense, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI stands condemned. Take up your cudgel against Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII or Vatican I or Trent. Don’t batter me with your false accusation that I pronounced anathemas against Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
30 Comment by Tom Piatak on 13 July 2009:
Mr. Meng,
Do you accept Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Christ, yes or no?
31 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 13 July 2009:
So, according to Mr. Meng, adherence to logic is “false accusation.” If Pope Benedict is guilty of holding the views that you have listed, and if those views have been pronounced anathema, then what, exactly, are you doing by listing them? Once again, all I’m suggesting is that you simply be honest in your intentions.
I deliberately did not discuss your “facts,” Mr. Meng, because you are the one attempting to divert everyone’s attention from the discussion of the encyclical to your sedevacantist views. But to point to simply one error in your list of “facts”: Your discussion of the “new ecclesiology” of Lumen Gentium is given the lie by the “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29, 2007, and released on July 10, 2007, in the wake of Summorum Pontificum.
“Responses” explains that those who have seen an evil intent in the use of the word “subsist” are simply wrong. Moreover, the release of “Responses” was tied to Summorum Pontificum for a very clear reason: “Responses” was the first doctrinal response of Benedict’s pontificate to questions that traditionalists have raised about Vatican II.
As the document explains, “subsists” has to be read in the light of unbroken tradition. It is not Benedict who is working the revolution here; it is those, like Mr. Meng, who insist that tradition has been broken, and therefore have to set themselves up as an alternative magisterium in service to the One True Church that exists only in their imaginations, rather than the One True Church headed by the successor to Saint Peter.
32 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 13 July 2009:
#31 – It’s my understanding that “subsists” is considered to be stronger than “is” since “is” (and its equivalent in other languages) can be used with accidents as well as substance. If we say for example “the chair is grey”, we’re talking about an accident of the chair, not its substance. So that is a lot different from saying “Jesus Christ is God”. Am I understanding this correctly?
33 Comment by robert on 13 July 2009:
“When did the Lord appoint Saint Peter and his successors as the head of the Church?”
Right before Peter boasted of how faithful he would be to Christ and then again right after the cock crowed three times as Peter was warming himself by the fire and telling anyone that woukd listen that he didn’t know anything about the man. One was an anouncement useing words and the other was a confirmation by a look of understanding from CHrist about the worm is every mans heart. Don’t put your faith in princes unless it is a successor to Peter speaking on Faith and morals. The rest is a crap shoot.
34 Comment by Mark Higdon on 13 July 2009:
@27: re “Great saints have taken popes to the woodshed.” (my quotation).
The irony that I attribute to Richert is plainly unintended by him: a barb that obviously went over his head. He dances lamely around historical fact in his choleric non-response to my post. He is all too typical of the media-driven personality cultists/apologists who have risen up around the popes of the late-20th/early 21st centuries.
The “great saints” to which I referred are canonized, but they were not so when they admonished errant pontiffs (Meng: I am not nominating you for a halo). Richert’s apparent certainty that any duly-elected recent successor of Peter cannot err in any matter of substance is typical of a garden-variety, post-V2 apologist.
Richert’s characterization of Meng’s post as “your sedevacantist views” is a shallow, cynical and misdirective slur. Not once did Meng even suggest–let alone state for the record–that B16 is not a validly-elected pope. Which does not make him (B16) immune to error.
35 Comment by robert on 13 July 2009:
Over the weekend I was reading about the Donatists and Pelagians. Butlers commentary about the arrogance of the heretics as well as the nature of their heresy reminded me again of what I find so repulsive in many elements of the traditionalist movement in America. There is no question they have the faith, no question in my mind that their hope is in Christ but they lack Charity to the degree that only a fool could read St Pauls admonition about sounding brass, noisy gongs and clanging bells without being reminded of the needless provocations and sinceless insults that so many trads love to hear and engage in. I really can’t see much of a comparison between some of these critics and St Thomas More or St. Catherine of Sienna in any respect. In fact Iago was nothing if not critical and I don’t even think the word existed before the 15th century and if it did, was rarely used as conduct worthy of honorable men. Imagine St. Thomas More giving televison interviews about the state of Henry’s marriage, or attempting to escape England by disguising himself in Sun-glasses and a ball cap as the press hounds tried to pursue him. For years I have defended Arhcbishop Lefebvre having met him on two occassions and taught in their schools and to this day have many friends I respect in the SSPX. But there is an element within that has become enamored with evil — fighting it, talking about it and engaging in it. It reminds me of pro lifers who have watched so many films about the gruesome procedure,they have become accustomed to horror and giving the devil his due,so much so that the ordinary duties of life in their own families become rather boring by comparison. Enough of all this public calumny among alledged followers!!If most of us were tried for being followers,there would not be enough real evidence to convict any way,especially when it came to weighing the charity in our own hearts. There are plenty of blogs to argue these issues so why create another one here? And by the way, has anyone bothered to read the encyclical that Weigel,Meng and Mark
Higdon object to?
36 Comment by HP on 14 July 2009:
Thank you Mr. Piatak…and these are great posts at this site for sore eyes. They should be pasted at Town Hall and NRO’s corner.
37 Comment by Bruce on 14 July 2009:
I don’t remember Him saying anything about successors.
38 Comment by Tom Piatak on 14 July 2009:
My intention in writing this brief post was to highlight the characteristic arrogance of the neocons, of which Weigel’s response to Caritas in Veritate is but one example. I let my curiosity get the better of me when I read Mr. Meng’s attack on Pope Benedict, and asked him if he regarded Benedict as the Pope, a fact which should carry a certain weight for Catholics but understandably does not carry the same weight (if any) for Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. I did not intend to start a full-blown religious debate.
39 Comment by Bruce on 14 July 2009:
Yes, sorry. Rem tene.
40 Comment by J Meng on 14 July 2009:
@34: Mark, you are absolutely correct, I am not a saint.
@37: Mr. Piatak, for merely citing published facts you charge me with attacking the Pope. I can only imagine the apoplectic fit you and Mr. Richert might succumb to if I were to really attack him.
41 Comment by robert on 14 July 2009:
Bruce,
“I don’t remember Him saying anything about successors.” Well, see that is a problem for some of you folks. If it isn’t in writing or part of scripture, then we are left with holes in the story. I heard a women tell me once that she could not be a catholic because the last three or four Popes we had were Jewish. A friend of mine who was a teacher said he couldn’t confirm or deny such an assertion about the last three or four, but he knew the first three or four Popes were definitely Jewish. Now if Linus, Cletus and the other early Popes and martyrs said they were successors of Peter, they might have been lying. But their testimony is what it is and most of the liars I know are not willing to die for their damned lies. We just have to make a decision on these ancient traditions and say yea or nay. As for me, I think it is easier to believe the ancients than the moderns, but that is just me. Regardless, I still enjoy your sharp questions and honest responses. Now Rem Tene before we both get banned for malingering off topic.
42 Comment by Tom Piatak on 14 July 2009:
Mr. Meng,
I notice you still did not answer my simple question, posed in number 30: Is Benedict XVI the Pope–in Catholic teaching the Vicar of Christ–yes or no?
43 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 15 July 2009:
Richert’s characterization of Meng’s post as “your sedevacantist views” is a shallow, cynical and misdirective slur.
I did not intend it as a cynical remark, nor did I intend to misdirect. I have been reading Mr. Meng’s comments here and elsewhere for some time now, and it seems clear to me that he does believe “that B16 is not a validly-elected pope.”
His refusal to answer Mr. Piatak’s question with a yes or no seems to suggest that I am closer to the truth regarding Mr. Meng’s views than Mr. Higdon is.
44 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 15 July 2009:
As for being “all too typical of the media-driven personality cultists/apologists who have risen up around the popes of the late-20th/early 21st centuries,” Mark Higdon clearly knows little about my stated views, in writing and in speaking, on the papacy. I have long criticized the “cult of personality” that has attached to recent popes. But it is possible to do so without diving off the other end.
And it’s also possible to look at theological questions raised by Benedict and do them justice, which Mr. Meng did not. I’ve pointed, in #31, to one area in which Mr. Meng is quite wrong. His response was to ignore it.
Kirt (not Mark) Higdon, on the other hand, got it right: The use of the word “subsist,” as “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church” makes clear, does not undermine the traditional claims of the Catholic Church but clarifies and indeed strengthens them. It most emphatically does not do what Mr. Meng claims and extend that subsistence to other Christian denominations—not even to the Orthodox, even though they are (as the document makes clear) true churches.
Of course Benedict XVI is not immune to error—no pontiff has ever been, including those whom Mark (not Kirt) Higdon and Mr. Meng would like to use to “batter” the current one. But we need to be careful about setting our own judgment above that of the men chosen by God to lead the Church, and that includes not misrepresenting their views (as Mr. Meng has done) in order to justify hurling anathemas at them.
45 Comment by John Willson on 15 July 2009:
To connect in an oblique way, Mr Meng sets himself above the Holy Father in just the perverse way that Mr Weigel does, The former says that Benedict XVI is not an “authentic” Pope, and the latter says that he is not a ’sufficient” Pope. I would suggest that both of them read the Holy Father’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and then go to confession.
46 Comment by robert on 15 July 2009:
“I would suggest that both of them read the Holy Father’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and then go to confession.”
Yes, this is quite a good book for those who think the Holy Father is intellectualy just a preconciliar liberal who thinks pragmatic change in the Church has gone too far. His understanding of the limits of the Historical/critical method and his confidence in human understanding and intuition is quite remarkable for our times. He assumes his readers have it or can develope if they desire as he discusses rather complex matters of epistimology,the knowledge that the evidence of things unseen can actually lead to, as well as his frank conversation about the essential differences between the Old and New Covenant. He is without doubt one of the most despised voices in the world and his own Church when it comes to his faith in the divinity of Christ and certainty of the Incarnation.. When this fact is combined with his election, it is the like the distracted professor discussing fosils with his students while ignoring the Giraffe and Elephant walking around in the same room. If there was any available evidence of the Holy Spirit working through the Church, (or any metric as secularist like to say to measure the known unknowns) his election would be the most obvious in its real obscurity and mystery as to how it could have ever happened in these times.
47 Comment by J Meng on 16 July 2009:
@31: Mr. Richert, in a generous mood, applied to me the establishment of a new magisterium. He said, “Your discussion of the “new ecclesiology” of Lumen Gentium is given the lie by the “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29, 2007, and released on July 10, 2007, in the wake of Summorum Pontificum.
“Responses” explains that those who have seen an evil intent in the use of the word “subsist” are simply wrong. Moreover, the release of “Responses” was tied to Summorum Pontificum for a very clear reason: “Responses” was the first doctrinal response of Benedict’s pontificate to questions that traditionalists have raised about Vatican II.
“As the document explains, “subsists” has to be read in the light of unbroken tradition. It is not Benedict who is working the revolution here; it is those, like Mr. Meng, who insist that tradition has been broken, and therefore have to set themselves up as an alternative magisterium in service to the One True Church that exists only in their imaginations, rather than the One True Church headed by the successor to Saint Peter.”
First, just to be clear, when in Catholic Church teaching before Vatican II, did the use of “subsists” ever occur to define the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church? If it is a Traditional term, please cite the papal document in which it was used. Before Vatican II, the Popes taught that the Church of Christ (the Mystical Body of Christ) is the Catholic Church. One cannot be more definite. It is an absolute identification; cf. Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, “the true Church of Jesus Christ…is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church.” The same Pope reiterated this dogma in his encyclical Humani Generis: “The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Cchurch are one and the same thing.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that “infidels, heretics, schismatics and excommunicated persons” are excluded from the Church’s pale. They are not part of the Catholic Church.
Second, “subsists” does just that, it “opens the door to the heresy that the Church of Christ is present in schismatic and heretical sects, although it does not ’subsist’ in them. It means that the Church of Christ does not achieve its perfection and fullness in them, but is nonetheless present in them” (“Ratzinger’s Subsistent Error” by Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn). Ratzinger stated this doctrine explicitly in Communio of 1992 and Dominus Jesus of 2000.
Third, According to this Modernist theory, where all the elements of the fullness of the Catholic Church are present, then there exists subsistence. However, partial subsistence exists in “Churches and ecclesial Communities [read non-Catholic sects]“, and they have some “elements of sanctification.” This is not a Catholic teaching. As Bishop Sanborn states, “We must first of all remember that there is only one Church, and that Cchurch is the Roman Catholic Church. Everything outside of her is a sect of some form, an organized group of schismatics, heretics, or infidels of some type or other. Their organizations are not churches in the eyes of God or of the Roman Catholic Church….In other words, they have no ‘charter’ from God to exist as churches….Therefore, since these groups of heretics and schismatics have no legal existence in the eyes of God, they cannot ‘have’ anything. They can hold no title to anything supernatural.” This, Mr. Richert is Catholic teaching. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church before Vatican II. You may want to put on rosy-tinted glasses that pretends to see Vatican II errors and heresies according to Tradition, but as the crowd watching the naked king parade before them, pretended to see his new clothes, you, too, can pretend. I would have more respect for your argument if you could show me the evidence that Vatican II or the teachings of Vatican II popes are in line with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church before Vatican II.
Fourth, I conclude, therefore, that the Modernist heretics of Vatican II established a New Magisterium which is completely out of sync with the Catholic Tradition. However, it is in sync with the primary theme of Vatican II: False Ecumenism, which is the basis of the Modernist idea of the Church of Christ.
Fifth, as a footnote, it might be beneficial to remind you that the Papal primacy is for the building up of the Church, not its destruction (cf. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). Ever since Vatican II we have seen nothing but destruction.
48 Comment by J Meng on 16 July 2009:
@42: Mr. Piatak, to answer your question, No, Ratzinger is not the Vicar of Christ. I have a question for you: are the citations that I listed above (#19) concerning Ratzinger’s teaching and actions, are they Catholic? Do they conform to Catholic Tradition? Yes or no.
49 Comment by J Meng on 16 July 2009:
@34: Sorry, Mark, I am a sedevacantist. I believe the theological conclusion that Roncalli, Montini, Wojo, and Ratzinger cannot have been or are not now popes. There is more than enough evidence to prove it. One of the main proofs is Christ’s injunction: you shall know them by their fruits. The fruits of these popes and all that we have experienced since Vatican II is destruction, loss of Faith, and the spirit of the world invading the sanctuary.
50 Comment by Mark Higdon on 16 July 2009:
@49: No need to apologize to me. All of us in this spirited discussion know to Whom we must ultimately make an accounting. In re sedevacantism, I stand by my implicit brief against it @26. It’s one step down the traditionalist path that I will not take. Meng, I’m “Catholic Family News” to your “The Four Marks.”
51 Comment by Mark Higdon on 16 July 2009:
@44: I would suggest to Mr. Richert that–even as he takes great pains to distinguish my published views from my brother’s–he not conflate Meng’s arguments with mine. Although we are close on many fundamentals, our posts and talking points have been clearly discrete, one from the other’s.
As for Mr. Richert’s “Mark Higdon clearly knows little about my stated views,” that cuts both ways. Each of us, I’m sure, has better things to do than to read up on the other’s entire body of scholarship and opinion. Not that either of us is so obligated.
52 Comment by robert on 16 July 2009:
” Mr. Piatak, to answer your question, No, Ratzinger is not the Vicar of Christ.”
Meng,
You are a nut job. I really hope you and Bishop Williamson find gratitude some day. Interea, you can go to hell and take the neurotics with you. What a waste of a good intellect, but God Bless you, crazy people need God too. rr
53 Comment by Mark Higdon on 16 July 2009:
@52 It appears this discussion has reached a plateau of reflective clarity. At least one correspondent’s plateau. I would encourage others who choose to remain engaged to dial down the choler and dial up the thoughtful articulation. To be safest, sleep on your comment before posting. At the very least, pause, edit and proofread before submitting.
54 Comment by John Mitchel's last laugh on 17 July 2009:
Meng says: “Sorry, Mark, I am a sedevacantist. I believe the theological conclusion that Roncalli, Montini, Wojo, and Ratzinger cannot have been or are not now popes. There is more than enough evidence to prove it. One of the main proofs is Christ’s injunction: you shall know them by their fruits. The fruits of these popes and all that we have experienced since Vatican II is destruction, loss of Faith, and the spirit of the world invading the sanctuary.”
If that logic were valid, then the fruits of Judas prove that he was no Apostle, which would mean that Jesus was not the Christ.
55 Comment by robert on 17 July 2009:
#52 and # 53,
Mark,
My apology to both you and Mr. Meng. I am going to retire from blogging. We could use some more silence in the world and I intend to provide my share of it in the future. You are attempting to be good men in difficult times and that makes one crazy, nutty, and deserving of respect. Again, sorry for any personal offense.
56 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 17 July 2009:
Mr. Meng persists in either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the use of the term “subsist.” There is no such thing as “partial subsistence,” as “Responses” makes clear. Straw men may be easy to knock down, but knocking them down does nothing to advance the argument.
57 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 17 July 2009:
Mark Higdon, now that Mr. Meng has confirmed that he is indeed a sedevacantist, I will be certain to distinguish your views from his in the future. Whatever disagreements you and I have had, they are light years away from my disagreements with Mr. Meng.
And I trust that you now withdraw your comment that “Richert’s characterization of Meng’s post as ‘your sedevacantist views’ is a shallow, cynical and misdirective slur.”
58 Comment by Sempronius on 17 July 2009:
“I am going to retire from blogging”
Addio,Roberto! Its been nice commenting with you.All the best,e’ tanti saluti!
59 Comment by Mark Higdon on 17 July 2009:
@57: Fair enough. Having since heard otherwise from the horse’s mouth, I withdraw the comment you cite.
60 Comment by J Meng on 18 July 2009:
@56: You are correct, Mr. Richert, according to Traditional Catholic teaching there is no such thing as “partial subsistence”; it is heresy. Yet, the Modernists parading as Catholics in Rome teach it. Ratzinger teaches it. I cited Dominus Jesus as a source. Have you read it? In talking about the Church of Christ, he posits that it “subsists in” the Catholic Church. Fr. Curzio Nitoglia, of the Institute of Our Mother of Good Counsel explained that this novelty “was chosen deliberately in order to deny that the Church of Christ is only the Catholic Church….’The change of est [is] (Pius XII) to subsistit in [subsists in] (Gaudium et Spes) took place for ecumenical reasons,’ Even the Modernist, Fr. Congar [Modernist periti at Vat. II], saw its real intention when he wrote, “The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute ‘Roman’ missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the ‘Roman’ Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and merely ordered to it.” In other words, according to Fr. Nitoglia, “…the Church founded by Christ exists in the Catholic Church, without excluding the other ’separated churches.’”
This is confirmed by Ratzinger in no. 17 of Dominus Jesus: referring to the “churches” that do not exist in “perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united with her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist….Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy [this is in reference to the Greek and Russian Orthodox schismatics which are not formally churches]….[Ratzinger continues] On the other hand, the ecclesial communities [Protestant sects] which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church….[and] In fact the elements of this already given Church [the "ecumenical umbrella church] exist [subsist], joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities [this is the heresy of partial subsistence, Mr. Richert]. Therefore these separated Churches and communities as such, though we belive they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” The last is blatant heresy and contradicts/denies the Catholic dogma of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.
Now, if you read carefully through the “Responses” you will find a rehash of the same heresies posited in Dominus Jesus. In no. 2 of “Responses” all we’re getting is the “elements” theory: where you have all the elements of Church together, there you have subsistence. But where the elements are found partially or imperfectly, there the Church of Christ is ‘present and operative’. In nos. 3, 4, & 5 we are being presented with a repeat from Dominus Jesus. So, what’s new? Only that you have bought into another Modernist deception: it is, because we say it is. This is the ecumenical mantra. Look at the fruits of Modernism, Mr. Richert, since Vatican II.
61 Comment by J Meng on 18 July 2009:
@42: Mr. Piatak, is it your desire to refrain from my question in #48?
62 Comment by J Meng on 18 July 2009:
@57: Mr. Richert, you have failed to answer my question in #47: point to Catholic teaching prior to Vatican II when the term “subsists in” was used to identify the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Is it your desire not to answer it? And although you have been trying to make an issue out of “subsists in”, which I have cited as a non-Catholic teaching of Ratzinger, you have ignored the other heresies and blasphemies that I cited. Why is that?
63 Comment by Mark Higdon on 18 July 2009:
@61 & 62: Turnabout is fair play. Pressed on the matter in this thread, Meng admitted to being a sedevacantist. I, too, would like to read the responses that he requests from Messrs. Piatak and Richert.
I will contribute this 2-cents-worth: If the phrase “subsists in” was meant to clarify a teaching that was already clear, definitive and unambiguous prior to V-II, the result has been a miasma of confusion. How does that help Catholics or anyone else, for that matter, to better understand the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
This whole intellectual chaos reminds me of when Bill Clinton said: “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
64 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 18 July 2009:
Before, I said that Mr. Meng has persisted in misunderstanding or misrepresenting the use of the term “subsist.” Now, since he has made it clear that he has read “Responses,” I no longer have to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is deliberately misrepresenting it.
He writes:
Yet “Responses” states, in the final paragraph of Question 2:
The wording is clear, and Mr. Meng is not a moron, so his claim makes him a liar.
65 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 18 July 2009:
Mark, you ask why the Fathers of Vatican II felt it necessary to use the term “subsists”—or even, for that matter, to attempt to clarify the traditional teaching. You have to recall that the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was, in ecclesiastical terms, still fresh. Father Feeney was excommunicated on February 13, 1953, after refusing to accept the Church’s official understanding of the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”). He had been sent a letter by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949, explaining the official understanding.
Yet Father Feeney’s excommunication left certain questions unanswered—or it might be better to say, it left the answers to the questions unclarified. If the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and if extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a doctrine, then how is it possible, as the Holy Office had made clear, that some who are not actually members of the Catholic Church could be saved, and yet extra ecclesiam nulla salus still be true?
The section of Lumen Gentium in question was an attempt to clarify those answers. Indeed Pope Paul VI said as much when he promulgated Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964:
You argue that “the result has been a miasma of confusion,” and it’s hard to deny that you are correct. Even the fact that the Holy Father found it necessary to direct the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to compose and release “Responses” seems to support your statement.
Yet you also say that the teaching of the Church on this matter “was already clear, definitive and unambiguous prior to V-II.” But take another look at Pope Paul VI’s words when he promulgated Lumen Gentium:
In other words, Pope Paul VI and the Fathers of Vatican II, fresh (again, in ecclesiastical terms) off of the controversy over Father Feeney’s heresy, clearly did not agree that the teaching “was already clear, definitive and unambiguous prior to V-II.”
Hence, the attempt to make it “explicit,” “clarified,” and available “in one clear formulation.”
In hindsight, the felt need for the 2007 “Responses” indicates that Pope Paul VI was overly optimistic. But unless you and I are to go down Mr. Meng’s path and start considering sedevacantism, then we should take Paul VI at his word, in explaining the intentions of the Council Fathers.
66 Comment by John Willson on 18 July 2009:
As much as one can appreciate the intellectual effort that goes into answering Mr. Meng, it is futile. Anyone who centers a conversation on calling the Holy Father “Ratzinger” and denies that he is the Vicar of Christ is simply, by whatever other name you wish to use, doing the same thing Luther did in 1517. Wish him well, but no amount of arguing, however nuanced, is going to change one thing.
67 Comment by Mark Higdon on 18 July 2009:
@65: “…the intentions of the Council Fathers….” and the documents that issued from them seem to need no end of explaining. The more they are explained, the less clear, the more conflicted and–in some cases–the more malignant they seem to many of the faithful. Something went very wrong here.
Scott, I appreciate the response that I encouraged from you. Yet your noblest, most thoughtful efforts do little to clear the miasma to which I referred @63.
To a great extent, the teachings of V-II and the intentions behind them remain clear as mud some four-plus decades later. How much of that is due to benighted perception vs. besmirched reality vs. evil intentions vs. sheer ineptitude is matter for endless, inconclusive debate.
What is clear to me, at least, is that these troubled times in the Church are God’s judgment being visited upon us. As to the reasons for that visitation, we would all do well to ponder them deeply and prayerfully.
68 Comment by Aaron D. Wolf on 18 July 2009:
@66: “the same thing Luther did in 1517″
Always the Luther. Cain’t you Catholics just fight amongst yourselves? Besides, Luther didn’t do THAT in 1517.
69 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 18 July 2009:
As to the reasons for that visitation, we would all do well to ponder them deeply and prayerfully.
Amen.
70 Comment by Ed Roberts on 19 July 2009:
re- #13
“Worshipping at the altar of laissez faire captitalism is a mistake that both libertarians and neoconservatives make. ”
I’m not sure I can agree, Father David. There is a marked difference between laissez faire capitalism as preferred by libertarians and the mercantilist, or corporate capitalism promoted by neoconservatives. There really is no form of laissez faire capitalism in operation today. Maybe the words “worshipping at the altar” were rather hyperbolic on your part.
Neoconservatives are usually apostate Jews or Christians if indeed any of them ever actually had any religious beliefs. It’s rather hard to find areas of agreement between neocons and libertarians. Maybe you meant to refer to objectivists who pass themselves off as libertarians.
You also wrote, “Vladimir Solovyov, in tune with Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII, countered Bastiat by observing that men are not a colony of ants. They must know that they are doing good and desire to do good. Social justice will not occur automatically or accidentally.”
Though I believe that I myself must do good out of a sincere desire to do good in order to follow the teachings of Christ, I can’t see any reason to conclude that I should follow these teachings of my Savior in order to bring about “social justice”. What those who believe in the concept of social justice seem to mean by the term is a set of consequences that occur, not “automatically or accidentally”, but spontaneously. That spontaneity is, I believe, the hand of God, and is not dependent upon my imperfect attempts to do good.
The apparent belief of some who use the term, “social justice”, seems that it is something that must be compelled by secular rulers. That is a view which runs counter to my own beliefs. I haven’t seen the term “social justice” in the Scriptures, but have seen it used by socialists and other collectivists.
71 Comment by J Meng on 19 July 2009:
@64: Mr. Richert, I defer to your ability to not only skirt (or is ignore a more appropriate verb) questions put to you, but your apparent inability to perceive the point I originally made concerning “subsists in” I address first. I said it has brought about a new ecclesiology, which Responses #2 clearly describes (as well as Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes and Dominus Jesus): “the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church…” It is very clear from this declaration that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ, because, while the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, it is also “present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities…” So, what is this Church of Christ? How is it present and operative in churches or ecclesial communities, which are either schismatic, heretical or both? How does the statement of Montini, “that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation” to justify the use of “subsists in” make more clear, make more certain Pope Pius XII’s declaration that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church? How can Montini’s formulation be so clear that two theologians, one Traditional (Fr. Notiglia) and one Modernist (Fr. Congar) interpret it as meaning that “There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the ‘Roman’ Church.”? You have yet to show us where in Catholic teaching before Vatican II, the term “subsists in” was used to identify the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church so that we can read it in the light of Tradition. One other question, how can Christ use non-Catholic ecclesial communities in themselves as instruments of salvation, when Traditional Catholic teaching is: that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation (with the exception of invincible ignorance and a concommitant desire for Baptism)?
Now, you can call me a moron, a liar, or whatever pleases you, but just please me, just this once, and any other interested readers of this thread, and direct yourself to answering the questions posted.
72 Comment by J Meng on 19 July 2009:
@42 & 61: I think Mr. Piatak, whom I respect, is abstaining from answering the question I posed to him. Or else, he’s busy at a family picnic, a ballgame or on vacation or maybe, hopefully, he is anxiously hurrying through the internet, or his personal library or the city library or the Vatican library perusing Vatican II texts, Modernist utterances, encyclicals, motu proprios, bulls, decrees, or news reports, conferences/synods with bishops or the editor of Osservatore Romano, “papal” visitations among infidels without any intention of preaching Christ, occasions of the administration of Holy Communion to heretics, praying together with heretics, schismatics, and pagans, etc., and comparing them to the teachings and actions of the Popes before the Modernist Council of Vatican II in order to make sure he’s on solid ground before he answers. After all, folks, Mr. Piatak is a lawyer.
73 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 19 July 2009:
Mr. Meng, you have no need to defer to my ability to ignore questions put to me. I prefer, especially in such obviously sensitive discussions, to address one matter at a time. Settle one, and we can move on to the next.
You have repeatedly made a claim that I have repeatedly shown to be untrue—that the Catholic Church currently teaches a doctrine of “partial subsistence” (your words), in which “‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church’, as well as in all other non-Catholic churches” (your words). It appears that you finally realize that you cannot convince others of your lie in light of the plain words of “Responses” (“the word ’subsists’ can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone”), so you’ve now dropped your explicit claim in your latest response—without, however, admitting that you were lying or even pleading confusion that led you into error.
Until you do so, however, I have no reason to believe that you have entered this discussion in good faith. Show us a sign that you have—admit that several times you made a very specific claim that was (intentionally or unintentionally) wrong—and we can move on to other matters. Unless you are willing to do so, however, I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
74 Comment by T. Chan on 19 July 2009:
Mr. Meng–how would you answer the following:
Do you believe that it is only through and by Christ that we are saved?
Do you believe that Christ has willed that salvation be accomplished through the instrumentality of His Church?
Do you believe that one of the effects of baptism is incorporation into Christ?
Do you believe that to be incorporated into Christ is to be a part of His Mystical Body, the Church?
Do you believe that it is possible for non-Catholic Christians to have valid baptisms?
Do you believe that the non-Catholic Churches (i.e. Orthodox, Oriental) have valid orders and sacraments? And that these sacraments may confer grace if the recipients are suitably disposed?
Do you recognize there is a difference between a formal heretic/schimastic and a material heretic/schimastic? If so, do you believe that someone who has been incorporated into Christ remains united to Him unless he commits a sin? On the other hand, being a material schimastic or heretic is not a sin?
75 Pingback by Why I Love the New Encyclical: A Brief Look | Quid Sit? on 19 July 2009:
[...] Meanwhile, I’ve enjoyed watching the fur fly. [...]
76 Comment by Travis Cooper on 20 July 2009:
Mr. Meng,
Perhaps because of the availability of (bad) sedevacantist and traditionalist literature on this “problem” in Vatican II teaching, you have decided to focus your sedevacantist ire at a pseudo-problem. (I speak as a former “traditionalist” Catholic myself.)
Mr. Richert has repeatedly located your error. “Partial subsistence” is not what Lumen Gentium and the Church “post-Vatican II” teach. “Partial subsistence” is, in fact, a contradiction in terms, speaking philosophically and theologically. @60, you identify “exist” with “subsist,” thereby revealing your complete misunderstanding of the entire POINT of “Responses.” Ironically, the point you are not understanding is the traditional understanding of “subsist.”
Accidents (“elements”) EXIST only in something (= depend upon substances for their existence); only substances SUBSIST (= exist independently, on their own). Therefore, to subsist partially is impossible: something either subsists or it exists. There is no middle ground.
This is the traditional understanding, laid out in the philosophical and theological writings of the Scholastic theologians (especially St. Thomas) and used in the explications of Church teaching in various official Church documents (Trent, for example). Lumen Gentium used this traditional understanding of the distinction between substance and accidents (and their respective modes of being) in developing Catholic ecclesiology, along these lines:
(1) The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
(2) There are elements/accidents of the Church of Christ that are present even in heretical and schismatic communities (and therefore outside the visible Catholic Church), e.g., baptism, and sometimes other sacraments (depending on several factors). Therefore, elements of the Church of Christ EXIST (but do not SUBSIST) in communities that are separated from the Catholic Church. (Surely, Mr. Meng, you will not deny that some non-Catholic communities have valid sacraments? And you would of course agree that whatever valid sacraments they do have, they can only have these sacraments in virtue of the Catholic Church, i.e., the valid sacraments present there derive their efficacy from the Catholic Church that Christ instituted. Therefore there are elements of the Catholic Church, i.e., of the Church of Christ, present in non-Catholic communities.)
(3) Therefore it is most appropriate to say that there are elements/accidents of the Church of Christ existing (but not subsisting) in non-Catholic communities, whereas the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church alone.
An anticipated objection: Why not just say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church? Why “deviate” from strict identification? The answer, in short, is this: strict identification is, by itself, true but requires clarification to make sense ecclesiologically. If you merely identify the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church by saying the former IS the latter, you are of course true and correct, but unless you clarify what that identification means or entails, you are unable sufficiently to account for the presence of elements of the Church of Christ in non-Catholic communities. Therefore, to account for the presence of these elements in non-Catholic communities, the Church at Vatican II adopted the traditional distinction between substance and accident: accidents/elements of the Church of Christ exist in non-Catholic communities (in spite of their heresy and/or schism), but they exist only by the efficacious power of the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church alone.
Therefore, the teaching of Lumen Gentium is a clarification and development of, NOT a turning away from, prior Catholic teaching.