Christian Rout in the Culture War
A Democratic Congress, discharged by the voters on Nov. 2, has as one of its last official acts, imposed its San Francisco values on the armed forces of the United States.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is to be repealed. Open homosexuals are to be welcomed with open arms in all branches of the armed services.
Let us hope this works out better for the Marine Corps than it did for the Catholic Church.
Remarkable. The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military.
Why are we undertaking this social experiment with the finest military on earth? Does justice demand it? Was there a national clamor for it?
No. It is being imposed from above by people, few of whom have ever served or seen combat, but all of whom are aware of the power of the homosexual rights lobby. This is a political payoff, at the expense of our military, to a militant minority inside the Democratic Party that is demanding this as the price of that special interest's financial and political support.
Among the soldiers most opposed to bringing open homosexuals into the ranks are combat veterans, who warn that this will create grave problems of unit cohesion and morale.
One Marine commandant after another asked Congress to consider the issue from a single standpoint:
Will the admission of gay men into barracks at Pendleton and Parris Island enhance the fighting effectiveness of the Corps?
Common sense suggests that the opposite is the almost certain result.
Can anyone believe that mixing small-town and rural 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Christian kids, aspiring Marines, in with men sexually attracted to them is not going to cause hellish problems?
The Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators.
This is a victory in the culture war for the new morality of the social revolution of the 1960s and a defeat for traditional Judeo-Christian values. For only in secularist ideology is it an article of faith that all sexual relations are morally equal and that to declare homosexual acts immoral is bigotry.
But while this new morality may be orthodoxy among our elites in the academy, media, culture and the arts, Middle America has never signed on and still regards homosexuality as an aberrant lifestyle, both socially and spiritually ruinous.
To these folks, homosexuality is associated with a high incidence of disease, HIV/AIDS, early death, cultural decadence and civilizational decline. And no sensitivity training at Camp Lejeune is going to change that.
Behind these traditionalist beliefs lie the primary sources of moral authority for traditionalist America: the Old and New Testaments, Christian doctrine, natural law. Thomas Jefferson believed homosexuality should be treated with the same severity as rape.
And 31 consecutive defeats for same-sex marriage in state referenda testifies that Middle America sees the new morality as the artificial invention of pseudo-intellectuals to put a high gloss on a low lifestyle.
Not until recent decades have many in America or the West argued that homosexuality is natural and normal. As late as 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Today, anyone who agrees with that original APA assessment is himself or herself said to be afflicted with a mental disorder: homophobia.
The world has turned upside down. What was criminal vice in the 1950s—homosexuality and abortion—is not only constitutionally protected, but a mark of social progress.
Yet, just as busing for racial balance led to violence, white flight and the ruin of urban schools, this social experiment is not going to be without consequences. And it is the military that will endure those consequences.
Yet, again, if we believe our armed forces to be the best in the world, why are we doing this, against the advice of countless senior officers and NCOs? What is the motivation other than the payoff of a campaign debt?
What happens now to Evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic chaplains who preach that homosexuality is a sinful and shameful practice? Will they be severed from the service as homophobes?
That cannot be far behind when the Family Research Council, a respected organization of religious and social conservatives that has fought the homosexual agenda from same-sex marriage to gay adoptions, has now been declared by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a "hate group."
The advance of what was once a radical agenda has accelerated.
In 2004, John Kerry may have lost Ohio and the presidency because same-sex marriage was on the ballot in almost a dozen states, bringing out committed social conservatives to the polls. Six years later, the gay rights agenda is imposed by Congress and Obama on the 82nd and 101st.
Let the reader decide if the direction America is headed in is toward those "sunny uplands," or straight downhill.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming's commenta on two Great Commandments are especially important. A Protestant who truly loves the True God, if he lives long enough, will eventually want to receive Him, body and blood, on this Earth. A Protestant who truly loves his neighbor will eventually want the formal communal bond to the Mystical Body of Christ that is the congregation of Christians--humans have a need for and love of formalized ritual, as God knows and I dare say wills.
What of the Protestant who did love God and his neighbor but did not live long enough? For analogy we might think of a woman who had lived a generally pious life but committed a mortal sin of sorts and got creamed by a cement truck on her way to confess it. The of the Sacrament of Penance would not be lessened if God dispensed her from her last confession on account of genuine good will. There is of course also the issue of perfect versus imperfect contrition and the like. We can only remind ourselves that our notion of justice is but a muddy replica of God's and that He will sort out all the intricacies and bring them all into the light.
Meanwhile, Catholics, best not to marry your dauphin to a Medici (who will marry your granddaughter to a Huguenot in a sacrilegious sham ceremony).
Don't think anyone has met my point at #86. Reminds me of Marxists who believe that the party is always right and the perfect proletarian state will be reached in the end if we just follow the party.
Dr. Wilson, no, I did not address your point and not many here have. Part of the reason, at least speaking for myself, stems from the lack of desire to confront a man such as yourself, who has much more education and experience.
However, if I may engage the statement, as it is written:
To claim that Our Lord condemns souls because of opinions or historical accidents is even more repulsive to His teachings than Calvinism.
First, what exactly do you mean by "opinion"? The prevailing view in the soteriology of Apostolic Churches (by "Apostolic Church" I mean the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Coptic Orthodox--in sum, Churches which can trace their present hierarchical structure through a line sacramental consecrations to the twelve apostles and exclude the Anglican communion) is that salvation comes through Faith and good works. According to most Protestants salvation comes from Faith alone.
Either way, "faith" cannot mean just any belief or opinion: it must be a Faith grounded in the Truth. However, a Christian does not have the right to hold an opinion in direct conflict with revealed Divine truth. If one's "opinion" is that Christ was only a man and not God, then one must be said to lack the true Faith and therefore to lack what all Christians agree to be a necessary component of salvation.
Second, with regard to "historical accidents," you surely refer to the 16th century, where half of Christendom was cut away from the Church. But this is not the only "historical accident" that has cut people away from the Church: there was also the crisis of the 19th century in France that put the French government in the hands of rabidly anti-clerical Freemasons, atheists and socialists who did their best to close down as many Catholic schools as possible and force poor Catholic parents to send their children to anti-religious schools. Their descendants have been poorly catechized or not catechized at all and have all but lost any notion of Faith.
So my response would be that God does, sometimes, allow "historical accidents" to rip people out of the Faith or to erect barriers to the Faith around them--for instance, the spread of Islam over the Levant. We do not need to believe in the chimera of Calvinism to accept this: St. Paul, I think, did tell us that God allows us to be given over to our evil desires if we so insist. For what reason? That is part of the great mystery.
NOW... I am anticipating the objection. I have tended to use extreme examples: atheist materialism, Islam, et c. for my points about beliefs affecting salvation. Let's suppose Catholicism is true; in that case, what about the Protestant Christian who believes certain "essentials" of the Faith but not others? Is he to be damned for that?
First of all, the things that Protestants tend to regard as trivial or wrong are probably doctrines related to the Immaculate Conception, et c. Though there are big complex arguments to explain why these are not trivial, they are certainly technical and obscure and it would be absurd to expect every one of the faithful to be perfectly aware of and to understand perfectly all these things. And if we wouldn't hold ourselves to such a high standard we couldn't hold Protestants to it, either.
Second, denial of a doctrine is only nefarious insofar as the disobedience is consciously known and willful. If there is doubt, a Christian does not have the right not to try to inform himself. Nevertheless, some people do not arrive at all the information before their deaths.
What happens to them? As I have said before, there are the notions of perfect and imperfect contrition, of "whether you were on the right path" and such, but our understanding of this is incomplete. No wonder: the further one wanders away from the Light of Truth, the more difficult it is to see what is going on. This is why Catholics stress the necessity of the Sacraments, to illuminate our dark lives with the Divine Light in the hopes of leading us ultimately to the Divine.
So yes, a non-Catholic may well be saved and a Catholic damned. So much the worse for the Catholic, who had all the light surrounding him all the time and should have looked at where he was going! How will he explain himself to his Lord on judgment day?? All the same... life is miserable enough as it is. Why try to walk outside of the light or only in the peripherary?
I apologize if this appears to be a tract; it is just as honest an answer as this poorly catechized Catholic can attempt to muster to your point, Dr. Wilson. Hopefully there is at least some valuable insight in here.
In sum, though: beliefs can affect one's state of salvation, insofar as Faith is necessary for salvation, and I think we all agree that it is. A man capable of intellectual engagement therefore cannot remain intellectually passive on questions of Faith. And on that note, while there have been a number of fine, learned Protestant theologians, but Luther, Zwingli and Calvin are somewhat exceptional: throughout history, the study of high theology has only rarely torn individual Catholic theologians away from the Church and into Protestantism. Conversions in the opposite directions, however, abound.
Finally, Dr. Wilson, with all due respect, if you mean to compare the Catholic Church's claim to infallible truth with the puerile dogmatism of Communist Party members, I couldn't disagree more. For one thing, the sin of Marxism is certainly NOT an excessively obedient spirit: Marxists have always preferred terrorism as its military strategy of choice. For another, the most politically effective right-wing Catholics in the early twentieth century (and beyond) have understood that as humans the Popes were capable of erring: Leo XIII should never have inspired the creation of "Christian Democratic" parties and Pius XI should not have banned Action Française--and such errors have only been to the DETRIMENT of the Catholic Church, not to its benefit.
The Church or the Bible
http://www.drbo.org/church.htm
The One True Church
http://www.drbo.org/church2.htm
" 'Well,' say my Protestant friends, 'if a man thinks he is right would not he be right?' Let us suppose now a man in Ottawa, who wants to go to Chicago, but takes a car for New York. The conductor asks for his ticket, and he at once says, 'You are in the wrong car, your ticket is for Chicago, but you are going to New York.' 'Well, what of that?' says the passenger, 'I mean well.' 'Your meaning will not go well with you in the end,' says the conductor, 'for you will come out at New York instead of Chicago.'
"You say you mean well, my dear friends, but your meaning will not take you to heaven. You must do well also. 'He that doeth the will of My Father,' says Jesus, 'he alone shall be saved.' There are millions in hell who meant well.
"You must do well, and be sure you are doing well, to be saved."
The Puritanism in most of us, be it the radically secular version thereof or the fanatically religious version thereof can tolerate absolutely no ambiguity. In that toleration of no ambiguity, we deny what we are, namely creatures in a created order and in addition to that fallen creatures in a fallen creation who cannot, given our creaturehood and our fallenness, know (gnaw enough of the infinite ball of cheese) to eliminate all ambiguity. To acquire the knowlege necessary to eliminate all ambiguity, we would have to be God, which is precisely the illusion and the delusion of Satan. Although we have capacities and facilities which we are obliged to use - the five senses, rational thought, and reason - we must remember that they are the assets of a creature and that when the creature fell, so did his ability to use them accurately. We are actually more like blind men, even the most faithful in Christ of us, groping our way around and through the created order and learning of it and coming to know it and the Creator of it and us by encountering it and Him, getting to know it and Him rather than merely coming to know about it and Him. God cannot be reduced to paragraphs or correct word etymologies, i.e. the object of reductionism.
Thus, I humbly submit myself to the truth that there is no salvation outside the Church; that there is but one universal Church - Christ is not a polygamist; He does not have a Catholic bride, an Anglican bride and a Baptist bride; the Church is real; she is not an abstraction; she is indeed the Body of Christ. I also humbly submit myself to the truth that theology and doctrine do indeed matter. I reject and struggle against relativism; however, in my struggle against the false god of relativism, there is always the danger that I, on the other hand, pridefully, certain of MY knowledge, come to worship the god of no-ambiguity.
I humbly submit to the reality of my fallen creaturehood and to Christ the Lord who has redeemed me from my fallenness and who makes of me the creature which I was intended to be.
The dangerous question which I ask each morning upon awakening is "Domine, quo vadimus?" My cousin Eddie asked that question last week, and our Lord answered him thusly, "Today, we are going to encounter a terminal disease and walk through it unto death!" Eddie is thirty-five with a three-month-old daughter and learned two days before Christmas that he had terminal stomach cancer.
I stumble along after my Shepherd not unlike I stumbled along after my father as a little boy. My father took me often into the deep woods, hunting, long before I could carry or use a gun. We would walk miles. I would stumble on roots and fall; he would momentarily disappear around a curve in the trail; he would cross a creek on a log and then talk me across it. I came to know his smell; I learned to recognize, even at a distance, his low whistle; I got to know his gait. Once, as a teenager, I fell off a bluff hunting, hunting alone, and ripped my knee apart, with blood oozing out the skin. I was several miles from home with feral hogs in the area; I was in pain and scared; after some time, I heard his whistle to which I responded. I asked him how he knew that something had happened. He said that he knew that something was wrong because I was late for supper. He knew his child.
My relationship with my father as a child was a foreshadowing of my relationship with Christ as an adult. Therein is my anchor.
"..Pius XI should not have banned Action Française"
I believe Pius XI was correct to do so. AF was headed by an agnostic who could only justify Catholicism based on utilitarianism; its not surprising HH did not want Catholics to cast their lots with such a group.
I am heartily sorry for having entered into this morass from which it appears one cannot exit without lavishing an enormous amount of effort which will be wasted on those who refuse to understand that Papal statements drafted as polemics by Popes like Boniface who on one occasion had to eat his words and was hated by many good Catholics for his arrogance and ambition, are simply not universal commandments to be taken literally. If Boniface always can be taken to speak with the voice of truth, why not Paul VI or John Paul II? As for Lubac, what little I know of him and have read of him inspires very little trust. Again, there is no reason to take moral, theological, aesthetic ideas promulgated in the past hundred years as anything very important. I am very grateful to Mr. Peters for once again steering a conversation toward sanity.
Every papal pronouncement has to be taken in context and is limited by every other statement. It's a bit like the Common Law Tradition or Scripture itself. I am not going to pretend I know who is saved and who is damned or even what the exact criteria are. This much I do know: that smug self-gratifying citations that show I'm OK and everybody unlike me is not OK, whether made by Calvinists or Catholics not in a position to make authoritative pronouncements, is a sign of a bad or at least weak character. Better the heresy of Origen who hoped and believed that all sinners could one day be reconciled--a view I utterly reject--than the smug condemnation of good people. And, no, I absolutely do not believe that in, for example, the world we live in, that any Protestant who really loved God and believed his word would become Catholic. It is not that simple. While I have little use for the ecumenical movement, I do think that Catholics would be better off if they set an example of love and charity toward their Protestant neighbors. Goodness, knows, we have enough to do to begin to clean up or own house before inviting strangers to move in with us.
By the way, my friend Roberto di Mattei has just come out with a long and detailed book on the Second Vatican Council. I have only read the opening chapter, but it is quite hard hitting against all the modernists and ecumenists who paved the way for that disaster. I don't know if there are any plans to translate it into English, but since he has excellent contacts in France, I have little doubt it will be out in French before too long. He is none too kind to messers Chardin, Lubac, Murray, et al, though he has excellent remarks on Msgr. Fenton. I have nothing more to say on this, but I do hope that others will refrain from posting any more links to ipse dixit arguments.
Dr. Fleming, I am heartily sorry for having contributed to this morass. One last sally and I will fade quietly into the Santee swamp to commune with the ghosts of Marion's men. In writing of opinion and historical accident I was not referring to the Reformation. Rather pointing out that while the Church may be an expression of divine intent, it is also a human institution. Surely there is room for difference of opinion about which of the accretions and changes of two thousand years are expressions of divine intent and which are the tinkerings of presumptuous men. Our Lord instructs us to have faith and to exercise humility, charity, and mercy. A dogma that condemns every sould that does not acknowledge it is egregiously lacking in humility, charity, and mercy, and hardly accords with the divine nature exhibited by the Price of Peace. He advised us also that the Law is made for Man and not Man for the Law. He surely did not intend that men be entrapped by Law.
Jesus is far less dogmatic about these things thanSome of you folks are. I rest in Dr. Fleming's assurance that what has been offered by some here is not truly the law of the Church.
Like Dr. Wilson, I have a certain anti-clerical bent. Msgr. de Lubac, unlike John Courtney Murray (a greatly overrated thinker whose wooly-minded abstractions about natural law would convince only a halfwit) was not always in good graces with the powers that be in Rome. I thought this strain of independent-minded heterodoxy might interest Dr. Wilson in reading him. Teilhard de Chardin was not, as far as I know, even a Christian but a pantheist.
A happy new year to everyone at Chronicles!
I absolutely do not believe that in, for example, the world we live in, that any Protestant who really loved God and believed his word would become Catholic.
Forgive me for my own last gasp into something that has strayed far off topic, Dr. Fleming, but when I said "if he lived long enough" I was allowing for the hypothetical "long enough" to mean perhaps centuries. You are most correct that it is not so simple.
What was it Lady Marchmain said to her daughter's would-be-fiancé in Brideshead Revisited? something like, "It often takes a lifetime." And more. Even one who converts formally in this world, even baptized at birth, is not fully converted until the next.
NGPM (@ 103):
Finely stated.
Mr. Maxwell (@ 106):
And, yet, Pius XII reinstated Action Francaise. Pius XI also, if memory serves, banned the Cristeros in Mexico. I humbly submit that this was another bad idea.
Dr. Fleming (@ 107):
“Papal statements drafted as polemics by Popes like Boniface…are simply not universal commandments to be taken literally…Every papal pronouncement has to be taken in context and is limited by every other statement.”
This is precisely what the Modernists said and continue to say: “Dogma is historically conditioned and must be updated to fit modern needs.” Do you really intend to open that can of worms? But, since you put more stock in Dante than Pope Boniface, I might point out that the doctrine of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” has been repeatedly taught:
Pope Innocent III in “Eius exemplo” (1208, i.e. a century before Boniface VIII) [Denzinger 423]
Fourth Lateran Council in “Firmiter” (1215) [Denz. 430]
Pope Eugenius IV and the Council of Florence in “Cantate Domino” (1442) [Denz. 714]
Pope Pius IX in the elocution “Singulari quadam” (1854) [Denz. 1646-8] and the encyclical “Quanto conficiamur moerore” (1863) [Denz. 1677-8]
Pope Pius XII in the encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi” (1943) [Denz. 2286]; the letter of the Holy Office “Suprema haec sacra” (1949); and the encyclical “Humani generis” (1950)
As for the “smug condemnation of good people”, from what I have read in this discussion from its Catholic participants, I would say that there is very little smugness. The damnation of any soul (even Richard Holbrooke’s) certainly does not give me the “warm fuzzies”. As I said earlier, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is an incredibly difficult and mysterious teaching precisely because so many people outside the Church seem to be so good. I should add that there is not, of course, a corollary doctrine “intra ecclesiam salus omnibus”(!). Many Catholics wind up in Hell, I should think.
“While I have little use for the ecumenical movement, I do think that Catholics would be better off if they set an example of love and charity toward their Protestant neighbors.”
By what, proclaiming the doctrine of “I’m OK, you’re OK”? The most charitable thing the Catholic can do is to set forth clearly the teachings of the Church. If your daughter’s friend were getting an abortion, would you lovingly drive her to the abortionist? If your son were marrying his boyfriend would you lovingly offer the toast at the reception? Love, Truth, God, and His Son are all one and the same.
In this connection, let me quote from “Quanto conficiamur moerore”: “But, God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and ‘being fruitful in every good work” [Col. 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.”
Professor Wilson (@ 108):
“Our Lord instructs us to have faith and to exercise humility, charity, and mercy. A dogma that condemns every soul that does not acknowledge it is egregiously lacking in humility, charity, and mercy, and hardly accords with the divine nature exhibited by the Price of Peace.”
It would seem to me that the path of humility lies in conforming one’s mind to the teachings of the Lord and His Church, not deciding on the basis of sentiment and our imperfect human grasp of justice (a.k.a. fairness) what we will accept or not accept. The path of charity lies in being forthright about the teachings of the Church; praying for our neighbor; and trying to open his eyes to the light of truth. As for mercy, it is not for me to show mercy, as I can neither bind nor loose. All that I can do is implore God to show mercy to all sinners, inside and outside the Church, and beginning with myself.
Idem (@ 109):
“I rest in Dr. Fleming’s assurance that what has been offered by some here is not truly the law of the Church.”
And this, my dear Dr. Fleming, is precisely why we should stick to what the Church teaches rather than offering our own “opinions” and setting ourselves up as a parallel Magisterium for our friends.
@ 112
The Cristeros were a mixed bag. Started off as a great movement, but as it went on for a few years they were making use of child soldiers. Some of their leaders were not sincere Catholics and instead encouraged banditry.
I also dont think it would have been very healthy for the Catholic Church to urge rebels to fight on. They were not going to overthrow the government. They had their minimalist toleration and that was enough for the Pope.
I concur with Drs Wilson and Fleming on this, and I thank Mr Peters for his wisdom.
I have seen too much insanity based on false religion in my time. If it were up to one certain cult, I would have bled to death in 1994. The fact that I had long since rejected their cult didn't stop certain family members from imposing their beliefs on me with regard to my medical care when I was unconscious, and then trying to justify it with lies. When dogmatic beliefs become that strong, it becomes impossible to trust your own family members to simply do the right thing, the decent thing, the sane and normal thing that any one else would do, when your very life is at stake. To this day, no one in that cult will admit that they were doing anything other than God's will.
This is where the rubber hits the road. If you're willing to do such things to anyone based on your selfish dogmatic 'religion', then you are lost.
Many here may think that this is an extreme case, but beliefs often lead to extremities.
That same cult used to ridicule protestant churches to no end and painted the Catholic church in the vilest of evil shades, accusing it of monstrous evils, as if it were the antichrist itself. Dont tell me it's members are just misguided but 'good' people. I know better. Down beneath that niceness there lurks both insanity and true evil. You must learn to see it.
It is sometimes possible to figure out very well that a certain person has went to hell because of the things he did in this world. We all know of examples, and I wouldn't disagree with Dr Fleming on the latest one. That, however, is quite different from what we are talking about here. What we are discussing here has more to do with ourselves than with those egregious cases who have already been condemned.
We are supposed to be as little children, not fire breathers, and if you allow any dogma to take you over so that you are willing to condemn all who disagree with you to hell, you are lost yourself. It is in God's power only, not yours.
I once heard an amateur philosopher say that any time anyone says that they have the Truth exactly as God intends it, and that if you disagree on any point you will spend eternity in hell, then you need to get as far away from that person as you can, and stay away. I concur.
Within your own dogmatism lies the root of all war, persecution, murder, death and destruction. This is why you must work on yourself first, or you will become just another spreader of misery in this world, for even if you do not cause mass violence, you will cause misery of one kind or another to those close to you and others around you. And make no mistake, it is just as important not to cause small scale harm on a personal level as it is not to start aggressive wars. From such small scale evils arise the large scale ones. There is no real difference other than scale.
Thanks for the all of the good posts. I thought it might be helpful to remind all of our posters that in 1962 the words," Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg your blessings upon us, our parents,our teachers,and our country." were ruled illegal and such utterances prohibited in any and all public schools in America.
It says something good about Chronicles that in the teeth of such persecution they remain willing and ready some fifty years later to discuss not only His name, but his mystical body. In this regard it should be mentioned that the old southern Baptist, Jesse Helms, did the only thing left and tried to remove school prayers from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Two apostate Catholics helped defeat his proposal-- Tipp O'Neil and Peter Rodino.
Now granted, by 1962 there was nothing left and only a feeble Baptist would think otherwise, but it should at least illustrate that politics is the last place to look for directions given the times. The only way to restore schools and prayer in the West is to look to the model of all of our schools and houses of prayer, St. Benedict and his rule.
Mr. Allen Wilson, were you a member of Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science Church? The one which says that illness can be cured with prayer?
One can not argue with a Dogmatic Feeneyite.
Fr Feeney had no Magisterial authority and he was slapped-down by The Magisterium itself but that really means little because so many modern Catholics are effectively protestant.
Feenyites may denounce modernism but they have been infected with modernism every bit as much as those they denounce and they, routinely, attack the Church. They are their own authoritative interpreters of ancient Encyclicals. Hell, who needs a Church when you have a Fr Feeney or a Brother Diamond or an Antiphon?
Nixon once said, "We are all Keynesians now." With the advent of the Internet and the Latter-Day Feeneyites (LDF), it can be said of we Catholics, "we are all protestants now."
Don't like the Pauline Rite, throw-in with the SSPX Schism; don't like Holy Mother Church reconciling two ancient ideas about salvation - the broad and restrictive view ...http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt... become a Feenyite.
One of the most nettlesome aspects of being a Catholic is that The Magisterium is loathe to take definitive authoritative actions when theological controversies arise. Cest la vie.
In the case of Fr Feeney, he, like me, was a Crank and the Church erred in reconciling him without demanding he first repudiate his heresies - and so now we have The LDF to deal with.
I have deleted two long and pointless posts above and will delete any more of that type. I grant Antiphon this much: He does not understand the nature of the discussion or the point I have been trying to make. I am not arguing for or against any dogma, and I am no historical relativist. If the Ecclesia consists exclusively of those in obedience to the Pope and the Roman Church, then why did Pope Urban II call the First Crusade to relieve our suffering brothers in the East, after the schism that has so far permanently separated the Eastern and Western churches? I did not introduce Boniface into the discussion but those who view him as the champion of the "Go to Hell" Catholics who cite the Church's documents much in the way that illiterate fundamentalists use proof texts. People who go about the world, without authority, telling everyone that they know who is going to Hell are committing a sin against the Holy Ghost. And people who manifestly enjoy sending Christians to Hell--even if they turn out to be correct--are not people I wish to have anything to do with. Life is to short to waste time on them.
I don't see Antiphon as a Feenyite. If he thinks that Dr. Fleming does not accept the doctrine of extra ecclesial null salus then I don't think he has read Dr. Fleming completely right, but Dr. Fleming does not need me to set the record straight on himself. One does not need to consign Protestants to hell to constate that Protestantism has been a sociological force with a largely negative impact and that the longer it has been cut away from the Apostolic Church, the more its potential for spiritual good becomes dispersed.
By the way, I would like challenge any Catholic who accuses the SSPX of schism to live in Diocese of Paris for six months, preferably including Lent, and observe the conduct of the ecclesiastical authorities. I'll invite you to my house for dinner (no religious controversies!) and give you a walking tour of the neighborhood...
observe the conduct of the ecclesiastical authorities
Matt 23;1-3
And with that, I'll take my leave of this thread and thank Dr. Fleming for his wisdom.
New Year's Resolution. Ignore EENS disputes unless Glenn Beck devotes a Friday show to the Black Americans Founding Fathers who were implicit Feeneyites.
NGPM "I’ll invite you to my house for dinner (no religious controversies!) and give you a walking tour of the neighborhood"
My son recently obtained a paying job in Paris. I don't think the SSPX is, was, ever was, in schism but the longer they complain about all the water coming aboard the Bark instead of grabbing a bucket, the less I think of their sailors and their outfit.
I would like to come for another visit with the same friends, the same wine, the same lunch and a similar conversation. This time I would also like the walking tour of the neighborhood and perhaps a final glass of wine (until the next time) after the tour. May God Bless and God Help all of us.
For the benefit of NGPM, let me assure him that I contradict no teachings of the Church. As I indicated in the beginning, it is not at all clear what "ecclesia" is taken to mean at any one period in history. I think we are not justified in picking and choosing passages from the Tradition in order to take and justify the most extreme position we can. And I stand by my position that different Popes, embroiled in controversies with Eastern Christians, Protestants, and liberal ecumenists, have made statements that should not be taken out of context and turned into absolute truths. Some of the most hysterical admirers of Boniface themselves reject Vatican II. From my perspective, the mistakes and misdirections of Vatican II will gradually be eliminated by the weight of Tradition and by wiser future generations able to take a broader view. In the end, it is not up to mortals, even accredited theologians and princes of the Church (much less laymen) to second-guess the divine mercy for which we all hope.
As for SSPX, I have to say I have many friends in the Society and I admire many, though certainly not all of their leaders. Whether or not they have been in schism, is not a judgment I care to make, but such a judgment does not depend on how bad the Church may happen to be in France or the United States. I think they are good people who were correct in their criticisms but who have made a mistake, and that it is alas in the interest of some of the SSPX leadership to perpetuate that mistake. The normal people I meet in the Society are among the best Catholics and best Christians (in a generic sense) I have known, and I think it unwise to enter into polemics with them. At another time, when there is less pressure, perhaps we can engage in a polite and learned discussion of ex ecclesia nulla salus, not in the sense of what anyone may think is true but only in the sense of what the Church has actually taught, and as our friend the Crank has pointed out, the reality is much more ambiguous.
"it is not up to mortals, even accredited theologians and princes of the Church (much less laymen) to second-guess the divine mercy for which we all hope."
God Bless the Fleming Clan and A Happy New Year to all their friends and family-- That includes you too Aaron!! You old stubborn Lutheran!!
Mr Sanjay, no it wasn't that bunch. Some members of the extended family were Jehovah's Witnesses. Then, they converted my mother. Then they all tried to pressure me into joining when I was a teenager, but I refused. I wont be pressured into joining any movement. Besides, I always saw that cult as crazy and abnormal.
Also, my father hated the jehovies, because a certain member of that cult had once tried to force his way into my grandfather's house to try and 'save' my very much not-interested grandmother who was waiting for the ambulance to come and get her. When she left in that ambulance, she never returned home. Imagine doing something like that! Such lack of simple common decency is a hallmark of false religions.
That bunch will try to take advantage of difficult psychological situations, moments of emotional stress, to convert you. An aunt tried that on me at the hospital, when her own sister was in a room down the hall, dying from cancer. What a time to try something like that! I responded to her pushy attempt with a snub. This was only about a year after my mother had refused blood transfusions for me, when I was unconscious and bleeding to death, and this same aunt had backed her up on it, although my mother knew very well what my wishes were.
If you're looking for lingering resentments and hatreds, just try topping all that. If you're masochistic, then join that cult.
The devil has many guises, and his favourite one is the religious. But enough of this. I would rather think of something less evil than lunatic fringe cults who think that their simple minded interpretation of their own mistranslation of a book is all they need to know God and carry out His will in this benighted world, or that their ignorant opinions trump Luther, Aquinas, Chrysostomos, Augustine, the early fathers, two thousand years of Christian tradition, and orthodox rabbis.
Anyone care for some Evan Williams Cherry Reserve? Something tells me it'll go good with Dr Pepper!
If however a bishop tells me that I am wrong to be cantankerous about the presence of Muslims in France, as a bishop recently did, then I submit that he "binds heavy and insupportable burdens, and lays them on men's shoulders, but with a finger of their own he will not move them. And [these] works he does for to be seen of men" (Saint Matthew 23:4-5).
Dr. Fleming, I needed no reassurance, though it seemed as though others might if they are trying to defend that doctrine. It is most correct that one Papal encyclical or statement does not, in itself, carry magisterial value much less infallible ex cathedra status. If I did not agree I would have to concede that I commit a sin to oppose the rally to the republic (and by the way, there are several good books defending Action Française by Philippe Prévost, who shows the condemnation was not quite what it is often supposed to have been (a reproach of Maurras's agnosticism--unfortunately I do not believe they are available except in French).
Anyhow, those who want a French repas know where to find me. Happy Saint Sylvester Day and Happy New Year--drink Champagne and DON'T DRIVE HOME.
As NGPM recognized, I am not a Feeneyite. Nor do I go about the world telling anyone that he is going to Hell. Furthermore, I do not enjoy sending Christians to Hell. I haven't the authority to do so, nor would I wish Hell on anyone. I do, however, think that it is important to state clearly the Church's teaching based on its documents rather than my own opinion of them (I have not made any appeal to my opinion, except in the matter of the suppression of the Cristeros). If that is the mark of illiteracy, so be it. EENS is a difficult, but most important doctrine to understand in this age of false-ecumenism and irenicism.
All that being said, I do think that I misunderstood certain points of Dr. Fleming's argument and for that I apologize. I do think that we have had a good discussion here and hope that we might, as Dr. Fleming has suggested, devote ourselves to a polite and learned discussion of EENS (though I must say that most of the commenting during this discussion has been polite, given the nature of the topic).
Here's wishing that the graces and joy of this holy Christmas season may continue into the New Year for all (both inside and outside the Church!).
I think youre right Dr Fleming - we need a discussion on EENS. Careful though; you wont get just a well reasoned Antiphon, EENS is known to cause other creatures to crawl out of the woodwork such as the de fide sedevacantists and Feeneyites such as the fraudulent 'brothers' the Dimonds.
I am indebted to several gentlemen here for making clear to me the full meaning of "jesuitical," and why its perpetrators have been hated and feared by civilised Western men for centuries. This has been like a debate with Straussians.
Straussians having prefabricated pseudo-authorities that dogmatically pre-empt every question at issue before the discussion even begins.
Jesuiticals and Straussians having no interest in honest deliberation, truth, or consensus but only in using knowledge as a bludgeon in the service of Power. Both attempt to circumvent the higher intellectual quest that is the hallmark of Western man.
Prof. Wilson,
I suggest you read and learn about the Society of Jesus: http://takimag.com/article/a_story_for_christmas/print
Dr. Wilson,
I have a great deal of respect for you and hope I have not entered the Strausian camp in your eyes. The most treacherous line in English is when Hamlet decides not to Murder King Claudius while at prayer for fear of ssending his soul to heaven instead of hell. Some,not all of this discussion, comes close to identifying why these lines are so treacherous. My family were all PRimitive BAptists from Virginia then North Carolina. The earliest son of the original clan, ISham, fought at King's mountain for nothing and without government training or leadership. Wheeler in his history describes those patriots very well and you have always reminded me of Wheeler's description. This doesn't end the mystical body debate but it does extend my hope that you are included.
#133 Tom Piatak
Thanks for the link, Tom.
I have attended such funerals where nobody is available to say a few words or carry the casket, but never knew quite what to do about it except to offer the funeral director some assistance or the in-house preacher a few dollars for reciting the Our Father. Now I know. Happy New Year to you and yours.
Thanks, Robert. And a Happy New Year to you and yours as well.
I could have chosen far loftier examples to defend the Jesuits, but I chose this one because I have some knowledge of the great good my alma mater has done and is continuing to do.
I rest my case.
@Tom Piatak: loved the story. I grew up very much apart from the Catholic Church of the Midwest and throughout my life in America I knew her mostly only on the East Coast, where nefarious influences have crept much further in. We'd always heard tales to suggest that the Jesuits had a magnificent history but had become but a shadow of their former selves. I'm happy to know that there is still life and vigor in the old tree.
"Jesuiticals and Straussians ... attempt to circumvent the higher intellectual quest that is the hallmark of Western man."
The higher intellectual quest of Western man is the search for truth. Agreed some use tactics deemed "Jesuitical" & "Straussian" by others, but that does not detract from the goal, provided truth is the central focus and civility is maintained. If I have broken conventions of civility, I apologize.
My postings were more in the spirit of showing through multiple sources, the teaching of the Church (#75, #120 & #139), and a basic apologetics for the Church having the authority she claims to have (#87, #104 & #119)
Post #100 I just thought y'all might find interesing.
Happy New Year to all.
NGPM:
You may be interested to learn where I last saw the teacher featured in my short piece. It was last June, in the school's chapel. Since I graduated, the school has started a tradition of having perpetual Adoration before graduation, with the graduating seniors typically signing up for the time slots in the middle of the night. I stopped briefly at the chapel on my way home from work, and the teacher was there, praying before the Blessed Sacrament.
Then there was this recent event: http://clevelandtlmfriends.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-11-26T14%3A46%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=10
Military Morality
NORFOLK, Va. – A top officer aboard a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier broadcast to his crew a series of profanity-laced comedy sketches in which he uses gay slurs, mimics masturbation and opens the shower curtain on women pretending to bathe together, a newspaper reported.
The Virginian-Pilot reported in its Sunday editions that Capt. Owen Honors appeared in the videos in 2006 and 2007 while he was the USS Enterprise's second-ranking officer, and showed them across the ship on closed-circuit television. He took over as the ship's commander in May.
The Navy said it plans to investigate the videos, which it called "clearly inappropriate."
"The videos were intended to be humorous skits focusing the crew's attention on specific issues such as port visits, traffic safety, water conservation, ship cleanliness, etc.," the Navy said in a statement to the newspaper.
Navy Cmdr. Chris Sims said in a statement sent to The Associated Press that the videos "were not acceptable then and are not acceptable in today's Navy."
A phone listing for Honors was not immediately available. He is a 1983 alumnus of the U.S. Naval Academy and was a naval aviator before holding command. He attended the U.S. Naval Fighter Weapons School, also known as Top Gun.
Commanding officers and enlisted chiefs "are charged to lead by example and are held accountable for setting the proper tone and upholding the standards of honor, courage and commitment that we expect Sailors to exemplify," Sims said in the statement.
In a video obtained by the newspaper and posted on its website, Honors addresses the camera and introduces a series of several lewd video clips, which he acknowledges have drawn complaints.
"As usual, the admiral and the captain have no idea about the contents of the video or movie this evening, and they should not be held accountable in any judicial setting," Honors says on the video. "Over the years I've gotten several complaints about inappropriate material during these videos, never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels."
During this introduction, he also uses a derogatory term for gays.
Next comes a sequence of what appear to be outtakes in which Honors and others curse. Honors observes that comedians who performed on the ship always got laughs when they used "the f-bomb." After that, Honors and others are shown making hand motions that mimic masturbation.
Honors segues to the next segment by saying, "Finally let's get to my favorite topic ... chicks in the shower." Next are shown clips of pairs of women and a pair of men pretending to shower together. No nudity is shown, but the men's and women's bare shoulders imply they are nude.
It's not immediately clear where the ship was located when the videos were produced. The Enterprise served a six-month deployment in support of the war in Iraq in 2006 and another six-month deployment to the Persian Gulf in 2007.
when a man rests his case, he has often exhausted his curiosity.
@143 You obviously do not know or know of Clyde Wilson.
I have deleted another post with long texts and links inserted. Such posts, explained as giving enlightenment on the Church's teachings, are a bit like a selective list of Scriptural passages designed to prove what Christ teaches. To Mr. Schultz, I repeat what La Bruyere says about some of the things we cannot tolerate unless perfectly done: music, lecturing, etc. and add, witticisms.
Jesuits are a mixed bag, though by the late 20th century it would seem strange to me that any good Catholic would enter the order. I suppose they were corrupted by their very virtues--discipline, obedience--but over the years the order has numbered some very great men, even if we exclude the founder. Robert Bellarmine, Augustin Barruel, Gerard Manley Hopkins, and Frederick Coplestone are some names that come to mind. I am sure there is some reason why so many loathsome modernists were produced in the past 100 years, but it is not a subject that much interests me. The English feared and loathed the Jesuits because they were too skillful and rarely lost a debate; power-seeking monarchs feared them because in supporting the Pope the Jesuits limited the ability of Kings to centralize all the authority at the expense of traditional institutions,
what a perfectly sterile and boring dystopia you and La Bruyere would offer. On the other hand, some are of the opinion that if a "thing (even witticism) is worth doing, it is worth doing badly."
Mr. Van Sant : you are correct.I "do no know.." the good doctor, but need no introduction to recognize an epithet. I see no good reason to tolerate one -even " perfectly done". If we see need to label those with whom we disagree, as immature idol worshippers, perhaps our "worser nature" should be subject to a bit of Carthusian discipline. Enough said, I take my own advice.
And small town Georgia sounds off with this letter to the Athens Banner Herald:
A homophobe comes out of the closet
With the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and the continuing concern over allowing gay servicemen and women to serving openly and honestly, I have myself, finally found the courage to come out honestly and stop living in the closet. I have served as a Marine for 12 years, and as a soldier for the past eight years. I've never really felt the need to "come out" before, but in this age of self-realization and honesty, I realized I should no longer be ashamed of who I am, even if some members of society don't approve. So, in the spirit of openness, I'm announcing to the world that I'm a homophobe. I'm not really afraid of homosexuals, I'm merely disgusted at that lifestyle. There. I've said it. I feel as if a great weight has been lifted off my shoulders.
I didn't choose to be this way - this is how God made me. This has absolutely no effect on how I do my job as a soldier. I only hope my fellow soldiers will accept me for who I am, and not subject me to ridicule and cruel comments.
On second thought, maybe "don't ask, don't tell" might still be a good idea.
Chester H. Mingledorff, Watkinsville
God save the south!
Back in the 1980s an Oregonian named Scott Lively penned a book called The Pink Swastika. It remains a very interesting read. The lavender lobby back then accused Christians of being Nazis, so Lively did some research and dredged up some very interesting information about homosexuals and their role in founding the Third Reich.
Perhaps history is repeating itself a la the Night of the Long Knives. The epicene Dupont Circle lawyers who head up clubs like PFLAG, GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, et cetera ad nauseam, might possibly find themselves being rounded up by jack-booted thugs and forced to wear pink triangles in FEMA interment camps.
Just a thought.
For all of those who succor The Feeneyite EENS Ideological orientation, here is some excellent advice to consider and apply.
Imitation of Christ Book I, Chapter 9
"It is a very great thing to obey, to live under a superior and not to be one's own master, for it is much safer to be subject than it is to command. Many live in obedience more from necessity than from love. Such become discontented and dejected on the slightest pretext; they will never gain peace of mind unless they subject themselves wholeheartedly for the love of God. Go where you may, you will find no rest except in humble obedience to the rule of authority. Dreams of happiness expected from change and different places have deceived many. Everyone, it is true, wishes to do as he pleases and is attracted to those who agree with him. But if God be among us, we must at times give up our opinions for the blessings of peace. Furthermore, who is so wise that he can have full knowledge of everything? Do not trust too much in your own opinions, but be willing to listen to those of others. If, though your own be good, you accept another's opinion for love of God, you will gain much more merit; for I have often heard that it is safer to listen to advice and take it than to give it. It may happen, too, that while one's own opinion may be good, refusal to agree with others when reason and occasion demand it, is a sign of pride and obstinacy."
The plain and simple truth is that those hold to The Feeney Ideology are liberals (and practical protestants) but while they judge themselves at liberty to attack The Magisterium's legitimate explanations of what ancient Encyclicals mean (who else has the authority?)they can not see the Caber of protestantism in their own eyes; and if they will not hear the Church?
Mr. Crank (@ 149),
I am having a very hard time figuring out who here is a Feeneyite. NGPM and Mr. Liem have both made repeated appeals to modern (i.e. post-Vatican II) Church documents. For my part, I have cited the encyclicals of Pope Pius XII and the very letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (Suprema haec sacra) which was written to correct the errors of Fr. Feeney. May I once again reiterate that I am not a Feeneyite, as I fully accept, as a faithful Catholic, baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Your concern with the errors of Fr. Feeney borders on monomania. Are you a reformed Feeneyite? If so, perhaps you have swung too far in the opposite direction, if you think that the acceptance of the Church's doctrine of EENS based on all teachings from the Fourth Lateran Council through Pius XII is a manifestation of Protestantism/Liberalism.
One last point: I would say that Feeneyites are rigorists (cf. Novatian) rather than liberals.