How Not To Read A Papal Encyclical
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.
Entries(RSS)
@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.
" 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
@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.
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.
#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.
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.
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."
"I am going to retire from blogging"
Addio,Roberto! Its been nice commenting with you.All the best,e' tanti saluti!
@57: Fair enough. Having since heard otherwise from the horse's mouth, I withdraw the comment you cite.
@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.
@42: Mr. Piatak, is it your desire to refrain from my question in #48?
@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?
@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."
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
As to the reasons for that visitation, we would all do well to ponder them deeply and prayerfully.
Amen.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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?
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.