Libertarians in Heaven
After church a bunch of us went out to a Vietnamese place on Mott Street, not far from Chinatown, but on the Little Italy side of Canal; with us was an accountant sort of a fellow who had something to do with National Review, who asked me about my politics. When I said I supposed I was pretty much a libertarian he pounced, just like an Assistant District Attorney on “Law and Order.” “So,” he crowed in triumph, “you are an atheist!” Which is no doubt why I had been standing for an hour and a half on tired legs chanting in a dead language. Never mind.
The late Murray Rothbard never tired of pointing out that the Austrian philosophy of economics and polity, from which the libertarian movement emerged, continues the analysis of Scholastic philosophers of the early modern period, and Catholic (paleo?) libertarianism did not end with the Scholastic philosophy. Last April The Freeman, founded by Frank Chodorov, published a lead article entitled “Antonio Rosmini: Philosopher of Property.” In it, Alberto Mingardi sums up Rosmini’s libertarian impact in this way: “A thinker of great clarity, though not endowed with a clear writing style, Rosmini belongs to the pantheon of the great classical liberals of the nineteenth century. An admirer of Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith, and Jean Baptiste Say, this Catholic priest understood better than many liberals the most important problem that endangers the survival of liberty in modern societies: the uneasy marriage between property and democracy.” Indeed, Mingardi points out that Rosmini, in his (very conservative) critique of Enlightenment perfectionism, nicely anticipates Hayek’s argument against economic planning.
Now Rosmini (1797-1855), a truly great and greatly neglected philosopher of liberty, was not only a theist, a Catholic, a priest, indeed, the founder of religious orders for men and women—and, since November 18, a Blessed of the Church, but one whose principal writings were on the Index Liborum Prohibitorum as long as there was one, the case against whom was finally dropped by the Roman Inquisition, I mean the Holy Office, I mean the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 2001. Then again the Cardinal Prefect, Dr. Ratzinger, now gloriously reigning as Benedict XVI, was a particular admirer of his, as was Ratzinger’s then boss and now venerable predecessor John Paul the Great, and just before him John Paul the Brief, too, for that matter, who had devoted a critical book to Rosmini’s theology and come to change his mind to a more favorable opinion. Even the Blessed John XXIII had devoted years to the study of Rosmini’s work.
But that does not explain why the Beato Pio Nono, formerly Rosmini’s friend and protector, suppressed his two seminal works, why the Jesuits obtained a posthumous condemnation, or why Rosmini was such a profound underground influence on the Church of the last century. It was surely not his metaphysics of Ontologism, which can be interpreted as a form of pantheism, but need not be, or even the fact that his last work was entitled Theosophy. It was because of his radical vision of the freedom and dignity of the human person, which threatened not so much the Church, as the State, particularly the “Enlightened” Christian monarchies which claimed a “divine right” to legislate in matters of religion and to appoint bishops to carry out their policies. His great enemy was Giocomo Antonelli, the last, or one of the last of the lay Cardinals, who had the ear of the trusting Pontiff, and accumulated enormous wealth as a secret agent of foreign monarchs.
Rosmini’s classic, The Five Wounds of the Church, was written in 1832 as a kind of manifesto for the beginning of the reforming (yes, reforming) pontificate of Pius IX; five years later Antonelli had it put on the Index, along with a book on the political condition of Italy. No explanation was ever offered, and the author gracefully retired to his home on Lago Maggiore, where he continued to write and to guide his spiritual family. The wounds in the Church which needed to be cleansed and healed were the lay folk’s not participating in the liturgy in any meaningful way, the bad education of priests, the tendency of the bishops to identify themselves with local or national elites rather than with the universal Church, the nomination of bishops by civil authorities, and government control over religious institutions. Indeed, not only did Catholic monarchs appoint their bishops, expect their obedience, and treat church property as their own, they exercised, well into the last century, a veto over the election of the Bishop of Rome. Like many liberals today, Rosmini favored the popular election of bishops, but for the opposite reason—because he wanted a hierarchy more loyal to the interests of the universal Church and less blown about by the winds of secular doctrine. Similarly, he wanted a greater emphasis on liturgy, not to make the Church more Protestant, but to make its faithful more Catholic.
Rosmini’s influence on the Catholicism of today was once seen in the documents of Vatican II, and it is there, as it is in the great encyclicals of Pius XII and his predecessors which inspired the Council Fathers to a degree that traditionalists and modernists conspire to deny. But we can see it even more clearly in the initiative—call it a crusade—of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to recover Christian reason: to present an understanding of the faith which is an open invitation to the candid intellect, and to fight for a conception and methodology of reason which is open to the questions to which faith proposes answers. John Paul’s Fides et Ratio names Rosmini among the greatest of Christian philosophers:
74. The fruitfulness of this relationship [between philosophy and the Word of God] is confirmed by the experience of great Christian theologians who also distinguished themselves as great philosophers..., Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Augustine... Saint Anselm, Saint Bonaventure and Saint Thomas Aquinas. We see the same fruitful relationship between philosophy and the word of God in the courageous research pursued by more recent thinkers, among whom I gladly mention, in a Western context, figures such as John Henry Newman, Antonio Rosmini, Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Edith Stein....
Not bad for guy still under suspicion—I mean Rosmini; three years later Cardinal Ratzinger was able to drop the charges against him, and last year, as Pope Benedict XVI, declared him “Venerable,” that is to say, a model of heroic virtue. In addition, beatification requires a miracle, God’s seal of approval. There was evidence of a miracle back in 1927, but it didn’t count until the question of Rosmini’s orthodoxy had been settled once and for all. Another one is required for full sainthood. Of the recent Western philosophers mentioned by John Paul, Doctor Edith Stein is already St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, and Cardinal Newman is a Venerable. Pius IX, Rosmini’s friend and patron, who was turned against him by the sinister Cardinal Antonelli, had been beatified in 2000 along with Rosmini’s great admirer John XXIII. Each reflects Rosmini’s influence in his own way.
Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors was the declaration of war against the abuse of reason, freedom, and democracy by the Christopher Hitchenses of the previous century, abuses which enabled “enlightened” libertine Catholic despots to strangle the Church in the ways Rosmini so painfully described in a book that the Pope, a virtual prisoner of the Austrians, could not allow to appear. In this connection we may well read such alleged rightists as Bonald and de Maistre as afterbirths of the Enlightenment, inspirers of the Modernists, and precursors of our own neocons.
Here we must note a neglected aspect of the ideal of freedom of thought, conscience, and expression in civil society, which Rosmini’s metaphysics and epistemology of the human person do so much to support. Today we are skeptical of Jefferson’s optimism that such freedom favors the discovery and propagation of truth and we are tempted to cite the French Revolution as the classic case of what happens when freedom of expression goes too far. But the French monarchy had had one of the most efficient systems of censorship in the world, and that was part of the problem. Frenchmen who read books took the sillier propaganda of the Enlightenment as gospel truth because they had nothing to compare it with—dissenting voices were denied license to publish by the “enlightened” censors. And in the following century, nay, the following centuries, clever propagandists purveyed (and purvey) the same nonsense, only this time passing it off as Christian and conservative.
An ideology of reason, of science, of freedom which chokes off the questioning of the human spirit is a travesty. And so is the ersatz faith that walls itself off from the urgent quest of reason. This was the burden of Benedict’s Regensburg address, aimed not so much at those who follow Muhammad openly, but at those who call themselves Christians, but are to all intents and purposes Muslims. And this initiative did not start with Benedict, or even at Vatican II. It was, remember, Vatican I which formally anathematized all who claim that belief in God is a leap of faith rather than a reasoned conviction.
It is claimed that our age is a time of conflict of civilizations, as if all civilizations are fundamentally equal. Some who speak this way are ignorant, but many are dishonest. Ours is a time, like any other, of constant warfare between Christendom and barbarism within and without. Barbarians are those who advance an inhuman humanism, a rationalism which is irrational because kills the freedom of intellectual inquiry by forbidding our most fundamental searchings. Barbarians are those who advance a faithless fideism which refuses to see the intelligible universe as the creation of the intelligent Word, or to revere the mind of man as the living icon of the Word of the Father, or to celebrate the civilization of Christendom as the continuing incarnation of the Word in Christ and His Church, or to see the other great civilizations as built on intimations of the pre-incarnate Word, their peoples groaning for the Gospel of the Incarnation.
Historians of the distant future will look back on the papacy of Benedict XVI, growing out of that of John Paul II, as the beginning of the great renewal of Christendom, one which all the genius of the Renaissance, all the fervor of Reformation and Counterreformation, adumbrated but failed to achieve. And they will see the quiet, humble, loving, erudite Antonio Rosmini as a true Father of the Church of the Third Millennium. It is a privilege to live in the times that he blesses.
Comments
A nice article, Mr. Purcell, as usual. The optimism of the final paragraph leaves me puzzling, though. I normally require some small shred of positive news on which to base my own optimism. Not that there’s anything wrong with uncaused optimism for its own sake.
Looking about, I see no signs that we are at “the beginning of the great renewal of Christendom.” Who will bring this about? Black Africans and Chinese? If we understood the difference between Christianity and the ideology of liberalism the West would not be dying. Neither the hierarchy nor the laity understands this.
I understand why liberals think JP II was Great. What I don’t understand is why traditionalists do. I have a picture of the man kissing the Koran, which tells lies about Jesus and Mary. He traveled more than any other pope, and made a celebrity of himself. His World Youth Days were an orgy of idiotic celebrating of nothing. His Church was dying right under his nose, many bishops and priests reveling in open heresy, and he did little about it. I watched Cardinal Law celebrate mass with him when it was widely known he (Law)was complicit in protecting pedophiles in his jurisdiction. Then we were told his successor would be a “rottweiler,” but he came a poodle.
When future historians look back, they will call JP II the Liberal Traveler; what they will call Benedict is still in doubt. But undoubtedly they will have to record that these men presided over the death of the civilization that gave birth to Christianity. If we are on the cusp of renewal, it will not come from us. Perhaps there are men hiding somewhere with the character and wisdom and learning necessary to begin and preside over a massive renewal, but I’ve not heard of any.
My own prediction of the future is the following: Murder. Lots of it. Not by us, but of us.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
First, I ask for Mr Purcell’s indulgence while I respond to Mr Kowalski in a way which might digress from Mr Purcell’s provocative article.
Mr kowalski (small k) wrote:
“Looking about, I see no signs that we are at “the beginning of the great renewal of Christendom.” Who will bring this about? Black Africans and Chinese?”
Maybe they will. Why not? Just as (the Jew) St Paul corrected and reproached many Jewish Christians who were reluctant to believe that the Gospel belonged to Gentiles as well as to Jews, so today, Western and White Christians need to remember that the Body of Christ has no nation and no race. As Jesus said to some Jews who believed their ancestry made them special in the eyes of God: “Do not tell me you are Sons of Abraham; God can turn these STONES into Sons of Abraham!”
Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return, and so will all races and all DNA and all nations, and for that matter, all civilisations too. DNA is just sophisticated dust, and all of the races and cultures and even the civilisations of Man - except for the Church - are dust as well, shadows and dust.
“I understand why liberals think JP II was Great. What I don’t understand is why traditionalists do. I have a picture of the man kissing the Koran, which tells lies about Jesus and Mary.”
But the Koran includes many truths with which the Church agrees, especially the truth that, “La illaha illa lah”, there is no god but THE God”, which means (or Muhammed intended it to mean) that Islam shuns and repudiates all idols. THAT part of the Koran is unobjectionable, and Pope JP II was quite right to kiss the Koran which has brought countless people, and peoples and nations, out of the darkness of idolatry. Didn’t Muhammed do SOME good - more good than ill - by leading legions of pagans out of idolatry, at a time when (perhaps?) most of them were NOT quite yet ready to understand the Gospel? Sometimes I think that maybe Muhammed WAS a true prophet of God - a prophet who had a special role to play in a particular time and place, as one step in God’s revelations to many who lived in darkness before Muhammed preached to them. WHO ARE WE to say that WE know ALL of God’s plans to convert the entire Human Race to faith in Christ? Maybe God DID choose Muhammed to play a special role, in a way we cannot yet understand.
And you wrote:
“He (JP II) traveled more than any other pope, and made a celebrity of himself.”
If you’re equating him with publicity hounds like Paris Hilton, then go f--- yourself up the ass with a porcupine.
“His World Youth Days were an orgy of idiotic celebrating of nothing.”
I smell the nihilist smoke of Satan in that remark.
“My own prediction of the future is the following: Murder. Lots of it. Not by us, but of us.”
And that smells even more Satanic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Mr. Purcell:
Interesting essay.Here is how the old edition of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA sums
up the Rosminian controversy:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13194b.htm (for the full articles)
And some critical excerpts:
“In view of other charges the pope ordered an examination of all Rosmini’s works. The decision, rendered 3 July, 1854, was that ALL the works be dismissed (esse dimittenda), that the investigation implied nothing disparaging to the author, to the institute founded by him, or to his exceptional services to the Church, and that to prevent any renewal and dissemination of charges and strife, silence was for the third time imposed on both parties (...)
“AFTER the death of Pius IX, the controversy was renewed. An answer of the Index was given (21 June, 1880) that “dimittantur signifies only this — a work dismissed is not prohibited” — and another (5 Dec., 1881) that a work dismissed is not to be held as free from every error against faith and morals and may be criticized both philosophically and theologically without incurring the note of temerity (...)
“On 14 Dec., 1887, a decree of the Inquisition condemned forty propositions taken from the works of Rosmini. The decree, published 7 March, 1888, lays special stress on the posthumous works which, it says, developed and explained doctrines contained in germ in the earlier books; but the propositions condemned have no theological nota attached. About one-half of the propositions refer to Rosmini’s ontology and natural theology; the remainder, to his teachings on the soul, the Trinity, the Eucharist, the supernatural order and the beatific vision (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, 1891 sq.). Some of the propositions were clearly taught in the works examined in 1854; others repeated what Rosmini had said over and over again in the principal books published during his lifetime. The superior general of the Institute of Charity enjoined obedience and submission on the members. Leo XIII in a letter to the Archbishop of Milan (1 June, 1889) plainly stated that he approved and confirmed the decree....”
Also, let me refer you to perhaps the greatest authority
on Antonio Rosmini, the late Professor Michele Federicp
Sciacca (University of Genoa) who wrote a number of illuminating
volumes about the man’s philosophy and life. (I heard
Sciacca several times in Spain, at congresses of La Ciudad
Catolica).
I think you are a bit too hard on the Blessed Pius IX, whose
encyclical Quanta cura is considered by a consensus of
theologians in its formal condemnation of 19th century livbveralism
to represent the infallible (and consistent) voice of the
Magisterim (cf. Fernand Mourret, Lucien Choupin, the
Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, R. Garrigou-Lagrange,
etc).
I am quite curious to know just which encyclicals of Pius XII
that you think Rosmini inspired, not to mention earlier
popes? Humani generis? Haurietis aquas? Mystici Corporis Christ?
I’ve never read any theologian who suggests that.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr John Ball… well said
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@John Ball
Defending the Koran and the Mohammedans?
Er...Okay.
I’m not sure if I could agree that it is better to
be an heretic than a pagan. After all, Mohammedanism
is nothing more than a complex heresy of the Catholic
Faith - Mohammedanism was born out of existing
Catholicism, the various types of tribal-based
Talmudism of Arabia, and the various types of
tribal-based paganism of Arabia. What John Paul II
did, by kissing the Koran, was an outright mistake,
hopefully never to be repeated by another pope. The
Koran provides NOTHING positive for mankind, kissing
it is the same as the pope kissing other documents,
such as the Declaration of American Independence,
the proposed EU Constitution, the “Satanic Bible”,
the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, today’s
edition of The New York Times, and a host of other
obviously anti-Catholic documents.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@for my friend John Ball...I think you are too hard
on Mr. Kowalski. Whether it be the ‘ecumenical congresses’
at Assisi or kissing the Koran, the personal remonstrances
and actions of a pope do not enjoy the charism of indefectibility
and can be respectfully critiqued. I won’t debate you over
Islam (or its possible role in the economy of salvation),
but only to say that we need a lot more of the “spirit of
Lepanto” and lot fewer “international ecumenical congressses”
these days.... I agree with St. John Capistran: I pray for
the conversion of Muslims, but understand that we may well
end up fighting them for our faith.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As I recall Paul said in Ephesians that the truth of Christ is written in everyones heart and if you live by that truth you have found salvation. Why is it so hard for many to accept that God speaks through just one religion or tradition ?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Correction… Why is it so hard for many to accept that God speaks through more than just one religion or tradition ?
And by the way hasn’t the Church taught that Christ was pre-figured in other religions ?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There is quite a difference between Christ being
“pre-figured” in pre-Incarnation religions and
being “post-disfigured” in post-Incarnation religions,
such as both Mohammedanism and Mormonism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Mr. Ball,
Perhaps Providentially, I have just finished reading a short, fascinating book by my friend, Robert Spencer, “The Truth About Mohammed.” One central point it establishes: the attitude of Mohammed towards Jews and Christians changed as he gained more military power--by conducting raids, personally leading battles, ordering assassinations, and destroying the crops of his neighbors (many of them monotheists). His statements and actions moved from the conciliatory evangelism of an isolated preacher to the harsh intolerance of a theocrat. Now, Christians certainly have displayed such attitudes, but Jesus never did. The example of Jesus was always available to the likes of Las Casas, Francis of Assisi, Vincent de Paul, William Wilberforce, and Bonhoeffer to CRITIQUE the un-Christian actions of Christian rulers. The example of Mohammed, on the other hand, REINFORCES the violence and intolerance of the worst Islamists today. That is why the Christians of the Sudan had to ALLY with the animist pagans. Such alliances are tricky, and always risk a betrayal of our principles. It’s very dangerous to get into bed with the likes of Pym Fortyn, Christopher Hitchens, Norman Podhoretz… particularly if it means you’ll lay aside your own ethical concerns (just war, prohibitions against torture). Also, you’re probably just going to get screwed--to give your “ally” what he wants (a war in Iraq) while getting nothing of what you want (restrictions on abortion, a heterosexual definition of marriage, etc).
Resisting the warmongering of the neocons does NOT mean fooling oneself about the intolerance inherent in Islam--as the writings of the estimable Scott Richert on this site and elsewhere make clear.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why the labeling of de Maistre as a neocon? Because he is not a libertarian? The good Count is rolling over in his grave! Still, an excellent article on the whole.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Purcell, you are a veritable font of interesting information about Catholic thinkers and Catholic thinking, but when will I find the time to follow up all your leads? I do have to dissent from your suggestion that De Maistre was a predecessor of modernism and the neo-cons. Where does this idea come from? I’d rate him as an early opponent of modernism and of the revolutionary thought now embodied in the neo-cons - or neo-Jacobins - a term used for them by Claes Ryn which De Maistre would quickly recognize.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ John Ball,
sir, your repeated resorting to juvenile cursing puts your accusations, vis-a-vis mr. kowalski’s remarks, in a strange light indeed.
They are unworthy of civlized discourse, rather tending to quash the free interchange of opinion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I wish I could find time to finish reading this , but I have to run off and see how work is proceeding on the mosaic apotheosis of Cardinal Antonelli in the nave of Dinesh D’Souza’s office.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Reason, reason, reason is on the lips of every westerner like a mantra. The worship of reason is destroying the West. The problem of the west is that intellectuals have rejected the Christian revelation as a source of truth. They have the arrogant belief that reason is the only source of truth.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Where did Mike Huckabee come from? When Pat Buchanan ran for President, neoconservative had alan keyes announce his candidacy to divide the conservative vote. In the current presidential race one gets the feeling Mike Huckabee is in the race to split the conservative vote so that McCain or Giuliani can win the republican nomination.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Russell,
Well, you know a few Southern, pro-Confederate writers (and the, we, are mightly few these days) blame(d) Cardinal Antonelli for keeping the Bl. Pius IX from recongizing the Confederate States, as apparently he wanted to (actually, he did implicitly when he addressed Jefferson Davis diplomatically, using all the correct forms of official etiquette)...so, you see..aha!...there is the link:
A) Antonelli stopped the recognition of the Confederacy;
B) The Neo-cons loathe old fashion Southern Conservatism (e.g. Mel Bradford, jesse Helms, etc.);
C) and so...logically...Antonelli was...a proto-pre-neo-con!
It’s that simple....!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Much food for thought in the comments here. Let me organize my response by Popes. P-9: I didn’t mean to badmouth him, honest. But his treatment of Rosmini was pretty klutzy, almost embarrassed. He shouldn’t have been so humble before this Antonelli fellow, not only in relation to President Davis. P-12: No, not a Rosminian, but still one who stood for the dignity of the human person in an exemplary manner, and one who wanted very much to share the riches of the Liturgy with the whole Church, even the whole world. Rosminian themes, and the indirect fruit of Rosmini’s influence. JP-2: I had to say the Great, at least as the world goes. I find myself bending over backwards to say good things about him because I found his style so profoundly uncongenial. It was during his reign that I left the Roman Catholic Church, with the written permission of the Cardinal Archbishop of New York, given under the authority of the Holy See. B-16: A man who would be generally acknowledged as one of the world class philosophers of the last century if he had not specialized in theology. A man who, like Aquinas, has the discernment to acknowledge generously those things in secular culture which are consonant with the faith without losing sight of the core of it. Our children and their children will be grateful to his memory beyond what we can imagine now.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Mr. Purcell:
Let me ask: does the following citation from your last response mean
that you are no longer a Catholic? That’s the implication.
I wish you would explain this a bit more fully (without wanting
to be too officious).
<<JP-2: I had to say the Great, at least as the world goes. I find myself bending over backwards to say good things about him because I found his style so profoundly uncongenial. It was during his reign that I left the Roman Catholic Church, with the written permission of the Cardinal Archbishop of New York, given under the authority of the Holy See.>>
Pius XII did indeed understand and value the true dignity of
men, and he understood that dignity could only be fulfilled if
the person accepted the true faith (as he repeated on any
number of occasions, most notably in his address “Ci riesce").
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Looking about, I see no signs that we are at “the beginning of the great renewal of Christendom.”
Prayer will help your spiritual acuity. It is when events seem bleakest that we can see the renewal underway.
If we understood the difference between Christianity and the ideology of liberalism the West would not be dying. Neither the hierarchy nor the laity understands this.
LMAO Yes, Johannes Paulus Magnus and Pope Benedict have NEVER written or spoken a word about that.
What I don’t understand is why traditionalists do.
Well, we think with the Church and realise the turnaround began under Johannes Paulus Magnus.
I have a picture of the man kissing the Koran, which tells lies about Jesus and Mary.<?I>
Big deal. It was a GIFT and the Pope was showing gratitude. Have you never heard such an action is an expression of gratitude in some Eastern Culture? Kissing the Koran did not imply he approved of what was written in it anymore than when he kissed the ground upon arriving in a particular country signified that he was confessing his belief in Gaia.
I have the soi disdant rad trads to thank for postig that photo all over hell and creation. Some soi disant Trads are NO DIFFERENT than the Old Pharisees. They lie in wait for Our Sweet Jesus hoping they can trip him up. Have a blast at your personal judgment. You will be judged lke you judge the Pope.
<I> He traveled more than any other pope, and made a celebrity of himself.</I.
Crap. He did NOT make himself a celebrity. He became famous because of who he was and what he did and what he said. He was as authentic as any man of the past 250 years. When the Commies bastards told him “you can’t build a Church here” he built a church. The photo of him standing next to Jaruzelski (sp) was PRICELESS. EVERYONE could see who had authority.
<I>His World Youth Days were an orgy of idiotic celebrating of nothing.
So, you are one of the nine subscribers to the Remnant, huh? MANY of the new orthodox priests credit their discernment of a vow to participation in those WYDs
<I> His Church was dying right under his nose, many bishops and priests reveling in open heresy, and he did little about it.
Yeah. He did . He went DIRECTLY to the people - especially youth and preached the truth to them. And you vilify him for that. No doubt you’d have been angry with Jesus for preaching to the multitudes from a boat.
<I>I watched Cardinal Law celebrate mass with him when it was widely known he (Law)was complicit in protecting pedophiles in his jurisdiction.<?I>
Gee. Do you think maybe he had received Sacramental Absolution for his sins prior to that? I bet you’d have been a real blast to be around Saul after his conversion…
<I> Then we were told his successor would be a “rottweiler,” but he came a poodle.<?I>
LOL Yeah, some poodle. Stick with the sspx schism, brother. You ain’t ready to come home yet
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Standing for an hour and a half and chanting in a foreign tongue at church would generally suggest Orthodoxy or else Ukrainian Catholic or Melkite.
I remember (fondly) from my own Orthodox (Antiochian) daysthe phrase “Orthodox legs of steel”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Who will bring this about? Black Africans and Chinese?”
Probably Indians. Dinesh D’Souza, Ravi Zacharias, Ramesh Ponnuru and Bobby Jindal are the best known defenders of Christianity in America.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A man who would be generally acknowledged as one of the world class philosophers of the last century if he had not specialized in theology
Johannes Paulus Magnus had Doctorates in Philosophy and Theology; he went toe-to-toe with the Godless Commies and kicked their ass single-handedly/peacefully; he befriended many Jews and led to a profound reconciliation twixt us; under his reign, the turn-around in vocations began; under him the Universal Catechism; he invented the Theology of the Body, etc etc etc.
The list of his accomplishments is astonishingly long. Even his enemies conceded his personal holiness and courage.And Pope Benedict has, at least twice as far as I remember, called him “the great” publicly, but, after all, what was his Papacy compared to the hateful scribblings published in execrable schismatic rags which have nine nitwit subscribers?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
These are deep diplomatic waters, Doctor Cathey- Until Mr.Purcell surfaced Antonelli, I had presumed Stan Musial to be the last secular Cardinal
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Frank’s being coy. He switched from the Roman to the Russian Rite, in full union with Rome. I’ve stood with him at those long, wonderful Slavonic/English liturgies, and listened carefully to hear that they included prayers for the pope.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oh dear, I thought I was sufficiently clear for once. I am still a Catholic (my Orthodox friends constantly remind me), just not a Roman Catholic, having been granted what was once called a Change of Rite, and is now known as a Transfer of Ritual Church, making me a communicant of the Russian Catholic Church sui juris. The temporal affairs of my little parish are supervised by the Cardinal Archbishop of New York; in spiritual matters it is under the watchful eye of the Cardinal Prefect of the Oriental Congregation, with the Holy Father himself taking a paternal interest in our welfare. Our pastor is of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Purcell, I am not the brightest guy, but why do you consider Rosmini a libertarian? Nothing in your article suggest to me that Rosmini share the moral defense of unbridled capitalism a a Rothbard or von Mises offered. The desire of the state not to control the Church does not seem uniquely libertarian.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ah, Mr. Purcell, I should have known, I should have known better than to suggest that you would have left the Church, but perhaps you can see why I raised the question? Thanks for the clarification.
@Stan...I’ve always been a St. Louis Cardinals fan, since the days of “Stan the Man” and Bob Gibson. In many ways, over the past couple of decades they have been the “best” cardinals, certainly in comparison to the ilk
of Kasper, Law, Mahony, et al.
I suppose I am one of those 9 who read THE REMNANT, alas!
Actually, the total is considerably larger than that, and as an
assiduous reader and, despite the accustomed and not unexpected
scorn of our friend “spartacus” whom I wish would one day use he
real name, the magazine is completely orthodox. If he were
to go to website for the journal (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com)
he would read an ENTUSIASTIC appraisal of Pope Benedict XVI’s
latest encyclical, articles on the music of Mozart, oon ecumenism,
and various other “heretical” [sic!]items. By now, Spartacus,
we know how vitriolic and bitter your feelings are against
the Society of St. Pius X and Catholic traditionalists, but
in this instance you are letting your hatred, and it is
rightly called HATRED, possess you. Certainly there are those
who dispute writings in The Remnant or those of us who
support the SSPX, but your venom, and it is just that--venom,
bespeaks something else. Argue and debate, score points if
you will, against those of us with whom you disagree, but
I have to wonder about the visible hatred and bitterness
your messages reflect.
I hope and pray you see what I’m talking about. You will
win no souls to your way of thinking in such a manner,
and that is what our faith is about--winning souls to Our Lord.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Nothing in your article suggest(s) to me that Rosmini share(s) the moral defense of unbridled capitalism a a Rothbard or von Mises offered.”
I am no expert on libertarianism, but I am not sure you have it exactly right.
The Freeman is surely an organ of mainstream libertarianism, and that journal finds Rosmini’s powerful defense of human freedom and of the sanctity of property as its great guarantee to be harmonious with their project.
To say that it is not the role of the state to enforce morality except when it infringes on the rights of others is not to advocate such immorality. That may be important here.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ah, Orthodox in Communion with the Pope, I believe is the phrase. I may go there myself. Only problem is that we don’t have the Melkites or the Russian Catholics here in Houston. The Byzantines/Ruthenians are nice people but somehow seeming to be creeping toward a kind of Eastern Rite Novus Ordo-ism. I have not tried the Ukrainians, with whose internet presence I have lots of sympathy, but will surely do so some day soon.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m really confused by this piece. Maistre a “precursor” of the neo-cons? In what way? I can find no reference to him in Leo Strauss. Isaiah Berlin called him a “precursor” to fascism. The consensus, at least, seems to be he is a precursor.
Is including Rosmini among the leftists (their own label, not mine) Maritain and Gilson a good thing? But then the Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile held Rosmini in high esteem.
The definition of “reason” as somehow related to “free inquiry”, etc., sound more like a passage from John Dewey. Doesn’t the urgent quest of reason ever have a terminus? And how can one speak of reason (ratio) without mentioning nous or intellectus? Based on your other essays, I was expecting that.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Scratch an American “conservative”, and you’ll find a libertarian. Paul Gottfried as much as says so in his new book, when discussing the Old Right. The case can be made that Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater were really libertarians.
Well, I’m all for Tory Conservatives doing some bridge-building to the libertarians (and bridge-burning with Fascists, racialists, extreme nationalists on one hand and Hamiltonian-Whig-Neocons on the other). So I welcome this article, but with several reservations.
I join several other writebackers in taking great exception to this statement: In this connection we may well read such alleged rightists as Bonald and de Maistre as afterbirths of the Enlightenment, inspirers of the Modernists, and precursors of our own neocons. Bonald and De Maistre would have hated Modernists and Neocons, just as they fiercely hated the Enlightenment (almost to the point of the fideist heresy, condemned [as Purcel mentions] at Vatican I); and Bonald and de Maistre hated also the Whigs, – the Whigs, following Fox, seeing Jacobins as “Whigs in a hurry”. This is the only glaring error in this otherwise good essay. By the way faithless fideism is a nice oxymoron. If Purcell, with the words “alleged rightists”, means that Berlin’s calling De Maistre a “Fascist” is bull, then Mr. Purcell is quite correct.
My other reservation: Catholic Social Teaching stems not from Bl. Pius IX but from his successor, Leo XIII. This Leonine tradition of Social Teaching, it seems to me, differs from libertarianism, and no lesser mortal than Dr. Thomas Woods has written an interesting book to say so. To what extent the Leonine tradition can be brought to rhyme with a libertarian one is hard to say.
Thus I would have welcomed a longer discussion from Mr. Purcell on Rosmini’s social teachings. Harry Wisniewski is raising a good question. As for Rosmini’s supposed “liberalism”, I have myself in these pages condemned any attempt to force the faith as Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian. There is no need to review that argument now except to say that the Synods of Carthage and Orange were not staffed with “liberals” or “Modernists”.
Boyd Cathey raises other concerns about Rosmini’s work, and I thank him for his link. The condemnation of Rosmini’s work ought to be taken seriously. I would also welcome a link to Ratzinger’s statement from the Sacred Congregation of the Faith which exonerated Rosmini. I would like to see the reasoning.
With Boyd Cathey I disagree again, as I have in the past: Quanta cura isn’t an infallible teaching of the Magisterium, inasmuch as the formula for infallibility wasn’t invoked. We don’t need to repeat that exchange. Yet Boyd Cathey is to be credited in not making the mistake of certain “Cafeteria Catholics”: that if a Magisterial statement be not infallible, it could be ignored. ALL teaching of the Magisterium, be it infallible or not infallible, binds all Catholics.
That said, there’s not much in Quanta cura that I object to. It nonetheless must be read along with other, and later, statements of the Magisterium. As it is, Good Pope Benedict will be issuing his own encyclical on Social Teaching within weeks. I pray then Mr. Purcell and others will comment on it on this site.
I assure Boyd Cathey, keeping in mind another organization to which he belongs, that with respect to his interpretations of Schubert, infallible indeed is Wilhelm Furtwängler!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Maistre the Neocon… I knew that would stir things up. Let me just remind you, the man was a Freemason — at a time when the lines between the Craft and the Church were rather firmly drawn. The Christian faith, as taught by the Catholic Church, was for him not a truth to live by, but a story you tell the peasants to keep them in line. Now is that Leo Strauss, or what?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
and various other “heretical” [sic!]items.
Did “Bishop” Tessier, writing in the Remnant Rag accuse Pope Ratzinger of heresies? (and why does she who denounces electricity, the very strange Solange Hertz, use lights?)
By now, Spartacus,we know how vitriolic and bitter your feelings are against the Society of St. Pius X
Good.
and Catholic traditionalists,<?I>
I am a traditionalist. Those of you who succor the schism had no right to either start a schism or unjustly claim the mantle of “traditionalist” in doing so.
<I>in this instance you are letting your hatred, and it isrightly called HATRED, possess you.
I am possessed with good cheer but when it comes to denouncing a schism, I write like the Early Church Fathers.
C ertainly there are those
who dispute writings in The Remnant or those of us who support the SSPX, but your venom, and it is just that--venom,
bespeaks something else.
And St Igantius, calling men like you Satan’s servants, what was his personality disorder?
Face it, Dr. you can’t handle being addressed like a real Catholic male traditioanlist. None of you in the schism can. Y’all roar when you attack then mewl when confronted.
<I>Argue and debate, score points if
you will, against those of us with whom you disagree, but I have to wonder about the visible hatred and bitterness
your messages reflect.<?I>
That is because you either never learned, or forgot, how the Early Church Fathers dealt with heretics and schismatics.
Please try and act like the traditionalist you claim to be.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I thought John Ball promised never to post here again? His usually rants into defending political correctness are motivated by one thing: the insecurity of having an Asian mail-order bride.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As Real Conservatives, we need to expunge mindless Enforcers of Political Correctness, like Sid Cundiff.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ my friends John Zmirak and Dr Cathey, thank you for giving me food for thought.
@ “Douglas” who wrote:
“I thought John Ball promised never to post here again? His usually rants into defending political correctness are motivated by one thing: the insecurity of having an Asian mail-order bride.”
...give me your real name and I’ll sue you for defamation. The Lady in my life was born and raised in Hong Kong, has an Australian PhD, has been an Australian citizen for 20 years, and I didn’t bring her to Australia - SHE invited ME to emigrate here!
Either tell me your real name so I can sue you for defamation, or else shove your above comment up your ass.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
First, to that dear and kindly “traditionalist” Spartacus:
you PROVE my points by your vitriolic and hateful response.
So I am now one of “Satan’s servants.” Get off it! You realluy
do suffer from some sort of disorder, Sir. I have any
number of friends on this site...John Ball, Sid Cundiff, and
others---with whom I disagree, and oftimes strongly--without
telling them they are Satan’s servants. There is such a thing
as civil discourse, something you apparently never learned.
And be careful about comparing yourself to St. Ignatius or the early Fathers.
For those (very) few on this list who wish to actually see
what the Society of St. Pius X says, the web address is:
http://www.sspx.org/ and cast an eye to the link to “articles”
which provides a number of references to points blurted
out by Mr. Spartacus.
Second, Okay, Sid, we won’t go back to Quanta cura, but
I am telling you that your definition of Infallibility
is too restrictive. Look at any Catholic theological
dictionary or reference (e.g. Ludwig Ott, Msgr. Hallen,etc.)
Vatican I provided for specific instances of self-conscious
declaratory pronouncements ex cathedra. But as anyone
who has taken a beginner dogmatic theology class will know,
the infallible nature of various papal pronouncements
includes the following characteristics:
(1) the Pope speaking qua Pastor and Magister,
(2) addressing All the faithful,
(3) on a matter of Faith and/or Morals,
(4) that has been taught consistently/believed consistently,
(5) with the language which clearly shows that the pronouncement
intends to bind all in conscience.
There is a myth that there have been ONLY two Infallible
pronouncements in the past 160 years: the Assumption and
the Immaculate Conception definitions. But what of the
canonization of a saint--mustn’t it be considered an
infallible act. Would you deny that?
And thus, Lucien Choupin SJ (in his standard reference VALEURS
DES DECISIONS ET DISCPLINAIRES DU SAINT SIEGE --check
it out, especially the encommia of Fr. Brian Harrison, onelin)
Fernand Mourret (in his authoritative history of Catholic
doctrine), Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (in his dogmatic
theology), the classic locus of theology, the DICTIONNAIRE
DE THEOLOGIE CATHOLIQUE, etc., etc., which accord Quanta cura
infallible status. Your argument is with them, not me,
but with a consensus of Catholic theology.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Here is Fr. Brian Harrison (1992) on the status of Paul VI’s
encyclical Humanae vitae, discussing infallibility. I can
multiply these references ad infinitum:
<<In contrast to these restrictive interpretations of the Vatican I definition, other eminent theologians took a broader view of the object of papal infallibility. Butler refers to an authoritative study by Lucien Choupin, S.J., “a recognized authority on the subject”, entitled Valeur des Décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, first published in 1907.10 Choupin, according to Butler, was the chief authority for the highly respected Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique in its article “Infaillibilité du Pape”, written by Fr. E. Dublanchy in 1923. In this article, Dublanchy says:
An ex cathedra definition is an explicit and final doctrinal judgment given by the Pope, relating to faith or morals, in such sort that the faithful may be certain that the doctrine is judged by the Pope to belong to revelation, or to have with revelation a connection that is certain; and expressed in such a way that the obligation is made clear to all of giving full interior assent to the doctrine defined, or to the rejection of propositions condemned as directly or indirectly counter to Catholic faith.11>>
I will be happy to send dozens more citations.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
And to conclude this for me: what Fr. Dublanchy states
in his long essay in the DTC is exactly what Bl. Piux IX
did in Quanta cura, per the authors and authorities I
cited.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My oh my, the vitriol - is ‘I Am Sparticus’
really Patrick Madrid?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr Cathey, my friend? Please listen to me (as few others will do on THIS thread), come on, Boyd, just come away with me for a few moments while I say to you, one friend to another:
Please, Boyd, my friend, please calm your mind and remember what really matters:
God loved the World so much, that He gave us His only begotten Son.
God became one of us - God IS one of us, Immanuel - because the entire Universe was created through God’s very Human Son, Jesus Christ.
God, in his incarnation as Jesus, chose to die on the cross, to participate in Humanity and in all of the sins and sorrows of Man. God chose to do so AS Man, because one person of the Holy Trinity IS a Man!
This truth - at least to my mind - is a mystery which becomes corrupted whenever we attempt to over-interpret it in overly logical ways.
God is one of us (this became true on the Cross of Christ), and God is with us. All else is intrigue and distracts us from that Truth. Or so I believe.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@John Ball...Thanks for your comments. Truth has many
threads, and the Church teaches, and Catholics believe,
that one cannot deny one without denying them all. More,
theology attempts to explain, in a very human way, those
truths. Some, which may appear distant at first glance,
do indeed bear on the essentials. The doctrine of papal
infallibility is such.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Truth has many threads” writes Doctor Cathey . “Some, which may appear distant at first glance, do indeed bear on the essentials. The doctrine of papal
infallibility is such.”
From this observation arises the epiphany that repairing the Libertarian-Traditionalist split infallibly requires someone to bridge the gap, a pontifex in other words.
Ron Paul’s first political incarnation as a Congressman is too parochial,but if New Hampshire elevates him to the status of electabile, then surely this top drawer congregation can find worthies to fnd him a secular cardinal’s hat and tutor him in artibus papabile, for an infallible libertarian would be a formidable Presidential candidate.
If JFK could overcome questions as to his being answerable to the Vatican,surely the Holy See is above suspicion when it comes to the White House? Let us unite to put Ron Paul II in both.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am not a reader of the Remnant nor am I associated with the SSPX, but I greatly appreciate the posts of Dr. Boyd D. Cathey both on this thread and many others. He has shown himself a gentleman and a scholar, truly. On more than one occasion in the past I have found myself in agreement with I am not Sparticus, but I find his (or her) posts in response to Dr. Cathey unreasonable and silly boarding on the histrionic. Why not follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI whom you claim to revere, and dialogue with the SSPX?
Regarding the infallibility of Quanta Cura, for what it’s worth, I second what Dr. Cathey writes, the document is infallible. The criteria that Dr.Cathey gives are correct and they are clearly fulfilled for anyone to see.
In the past I have taken strong exception to some positions of Mr. Cundiff. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I appreciate many of his posts esp. his efforts to categorize and synthesize conservative thought. It is for the same reason that I appreciate Mr. Purcell i.e. the synthetic quality of his thought, although as with Mr. Cundiff I have been critical of him in the past. Which brings me to a question and challenge for Mr. Purcell: In the first paragraph of your article you wrote “I said I supposed I was pretty much a libertarian” but in response to Harry Wisniewski you say, “I am no expert on libertarianism...” How does this fit together? Maybe you have another position on liberty that doesn’t quite fit the libertarian label. I would like to hear more about your thinking on liberty and particularly with regard to the idea of progress. Let me explain what I’m thinking: In the past you have express your interest and/or admiration for Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong S.J., Pierre Teilhard de Chardin S.J.,and John Deely who espouse an evolutionary worldview, or in the case of McLuhan, whose thinking develops or at least has been read as developing the an important evolutionary thinker i.e. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. My impression is that you hold to a something a Teilhardian advance in consciousness and freedom but with a derailment in the early modern period which is being repaired by the advent of semiotics and Austrian economics as they pick up neglected Scholastic strands.
It is too bad that potentially fruitful conversations such as these are at the mercy of the blog format! After all isn’t continuity a conservative principle? The administrators should consider opening a forum where conversations on issues raised in the comments can
Click to flag this comment as abusive
continue.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
When I say that I am not an expert on libertarianism, I mean that I have no particular authority to rule on what is the correct libertarian line, and no great stake in the discussion. From the point of view of some the fact that I am a theist disqualifies me.
I would like to pass on the Teilhard question. After a good many years I still haven’t managed to make much sense of the fellow, and some of the sense I make I can’t go along with. I read McLuhan and Ong as a lot more traditionalist than most of those who throw their names around, but I am not much of a follower of either.
Synthesist? I do seem to draw upon a rather motley crew for exposition, fewer resources for construction. And my own synthesis is guided by a small body of principle, which is, humanly speaking, Thomistic in origin, though we can always argue about which Thomistic school best represents the Master.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey. Those who start a schism, and those who succor a schism, serve Satan. That is the language of Tradition.
Currently, the priest Fellay is sitting in Satan’s Schismatic Saddle, riding the
Pale Horse of Ecclesiastical Pestilence,until he is unhorsed by an Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus death. Astride the beast, he exhorts his followers to
reject the authority of the Pope; astride the beast, he exhorts his followers to
think the Mass evil; astride the beast he exhorts his followers to think an
Ecumenical Council heretical; astride the beast, he exhorts his followers to
think all Jews are cursed as a race....
But, I am only a weak imitator of real Traditionalists, like, for instance, St. Ignatius.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has
been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop,does [in reality] serve the devil.
Dr. Cathey. That is the way a raal Traditionalist writes about those who cause a schism.
But, among the feminised and liberalised and protestantised faux “traditionalists” within the schism, the last thing they desire is to be approached in the traditional masculine manner.
They spout the most vile, hateful, insane, and evil ideas - “The Jews as a race are cursed” - while thinking they also have some rational appeal to an objective morality that will convince their sane opponents.
No dice, brother. I call a spade a spade when it comes to the schism. Just like real Trads always have
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My oh my, the vitriol - is ‘I Am Sparticus’ really Patrick Madrid?
No. Mr. Madrid is intelligent.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oh, spartacus! What now, impugning my masculinity?
Indeed, spare me your “spade”...which is little more
than angry bile....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why not follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI whom you claim to revere, and dialogue with the SSPX?
Mr. aBellio. Different goals. Our Sweet Jesus on Earth is trying to reconcile the heretical schismatics and I am trying to warn others about their undeserved reputations.
I am convinced all the sturm und drang involved in the negotiations are, on their behalf, phony atmospherics intended to keep the “fight” front and center and the cash rolling in.
Those who succor the schism will, eventually, stop showing-up at the abandoned airport hangars-Schismatic Chapels and the money will stop flowing unless these little dramas are symbolically re-enacted from time to timer.
Our Sweet Jesus on Earth is searching out the lost sheep. He is doing his job.
As for The Remnant, it is a revolutionary rag for retards ( I don’t mean that in a bad way)
As for Dr Cathey. I have nothing against him personally. The schism is my enemy. And schism has always been the enemy for every traditionalist worthy of the name.
I suppose the modern schismatics could not help but be tainted by the worst aspects of the culture they were born into. But talk about being feminised and liberalised. That’s them in spades.
The schism is teeming with whiners bleating someone spoke to them in a bad way while falsely claiming they can judge when and whom to obey, and all the while Lefevbre was saying that Johannes Paulus Magnus was the AntiChrist. That didn’t seem to bother them. Oh, no. They agreed.
See, that is the double standard those feminised liberals operate on. One CAN call Pope John Paul II the antiChrist but one CAN NOR say a schism serves Satan.
Sure, it is jejune and catty. But, that is what a schism does to folks. It makes men weak,unstable, insane, and easily manipulated by the leaders of that schismatic cult.
I miss the old school schismatics. They were men about their perfidy.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Maistre the Neocon… I knew that would stir things up. Let me just remind you, the man was a Freemason — at a time when the lines between the Craft and the Church were rather firmly drawn. The Christian faith, as taught by the Catholic Church, was for him not a truth to live by, but a story you tell the peasants to keep them in line. Now is that Leo Strauss, or what?” Frank Purcell
That’s it? That’s your evidence that De Maistre was an early modernist and an early neo-con? He was a freemason from 1774 to 1790, a time when it was by no means so evident that Freemasonry was a movement very dangerous to the Church. This first became evident at the time of the French Revolution. De Maistre supported the earlier reformist activities of the Estates General, but was quick to realize his mistake and ended both his masonry and his sympathy for what in France was fast becoming a revolutionary movement of the most gruesome type. His future writings were all anti-revolutionary.
Furthermore, I don’t think neo-conservatives can just be across-the-board compared to Masons. Some Masons yes; I’ve mentioned the Jacobins. But other early Masons were Catholic royalists, seeking to restore the Stuart monarchy and the Catholic faith to England.
As far as the charge that De Maistre did not believe in the truths of Christianity but just considered it a story to tell to keep the peasants in line, what evidence to you have of that, Mr. Purcell? Certainly he considered the French Revolution to be the punishment of God on an arrogant monarchy which refused to submit to the Pope but instead tried to establish a national Gallican Church. But that is a long way from contending that Christianity is not true, merely useful for warding off revolutions. One could certainly say that De Maistre was too authoritarian and question his advocacy of making the Pope sort of a temporal ruler over all others in addition to being a spiritual ruler. But I have never heard anyone contend before that De Maistre was not a believing Catholic Christian.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey,
In case you haven’t noticed, it is an absolute
and complete waste of time to try and discuss
anything serious about the one, true faith with
a self-proclaimed, self-satisfied, and overtly
modernist apostate like Spart. He knows NOTHING
of tradition. He wouldn’t know a schism from a
heresy. Pride always goes before the fall....so
give him plenty of room.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Rather than reply to Boyd Cathey, who has made some good points, I now formally ask the editor to delete “Douglas’” remarks and forbid him from posting here again. John Ball is one of the best writebackers. For someone, in this case “Douglas” to stoop so low as to attack John Ball’s marriage is to detract from the the high standards of this website.
I told y’all that our Racialists would stoop to such levels: attacking someone because his wife is of a different “race”.
I ask the Editor again that “Douglas” be removed and sent off to Stormfront where he and his kind belong. I ask the rest of you to support me in this.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
De Maistre “was a freemason from 1774 to 1790, a time when it was by no means so evident that Freemasonry was a movement very dangerous to the Church.” It was evident enough to the Church at least since the time of Clement XII (1738), and to all Catholics willing to acknowledge the authority of the Pope in such matters. De Maistre was eloquent about the anarchy resulting from open unbelief, and the divine authority of secular rulers, and at the end of his fairly long life turned to the Papacy as the ultimate in his philosophy of authoritarianism. I am willing to imagine that he came gradually to his full appreciation of Catholicity, but I think it would be a great mistake to approach things from his angle. Cvil order is a great good, but the Christian embraces Christ even when He brings, not peace, but a sword.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Spart. He knows NOTHING of tradition. He wouldn’t know a schism from a heresy. Pride always goes before the fall....so
give him plenty of room
LOL Wow. Two of the nine Remnant subscribers on the same site.
Teachem, when I read your words I am thrown back into a time warp when Draft Dodgers went to Canada and issued statements that their cowardice was the new masculinity.
Sadly, for y’all, Pope Benedict is not Jimmy Carter :)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Frank,
I think the Revolution had a dramatic effect on De Maistre,
as it did on other intellectuals (both pro and con). But
anyone who has read DU PAPE or SOIREES DE SAINT PETERSBURG
could never mistake him for any kind of proto-neo-con.
What I have always found fascinating about De Maistre, as
indeed other figures of that transitional period, is indeed
how they reacted to the upheaval in France. Most on this
list know about Burke (and his translator in German lands,
Friedrich Gentz), but, as Paul Gottfried has shown in an
earlier volume, the “Revolution” (capital “R")caused
tremendous intellectual ferment and re-examination on the
part of many former “illuminees” (who perhaps weren’t really
that “illuminee” to begin with?). In Bavaria, with Adam
Mueller and others, in Spain with Jaime Balmes and “Lost
Persos” and their famous manifesto, with Villeneuve-Bargemont
in France...there is indeed a mini-Counter-Reformation not
only politically but intellectually, as the fact of the
Revolution forced willy-nilly the defenders of the ancien
regime to re-examine their unstated postulates and to
formulate, on paper, their beliefs and views, most of which
were wrapped up very closely with “altar and throne.”
Indeed, this is more or less the origin of the modern
distinctions between what we call “right” and “left” (or
“siniestra”...as the Right would call their opponents, with
the implication of “sinister” as well). Those beliefs that
men had assumed were unassailable prior to 1789 now required
written and argued responses. Bertier de Sauvigny’s
book THE RESTORATION (on France) recounts some of that
history in “the eldest daughter” of the Church, as doews
Rene Remond’s classic THE RIGHT-WING IN FRANCE and Matthew
Elbow’s FRENCH CORPORATIVE THEORY. My friend Alexandra
Wilhelmsen (in her book on Carlism) has done the same
thing for Spain. And Sir Harold Action, in his two delightufl
books on the Bourbons of Naples, details, using diaries
and journals of the period, the raw popular and Catholic
reaction to the Revolution in Naples and parts of Italy.
Who can forget the incredible action of Cardinal Ruffo
di Calabria, who landed in 1799 with just a handful of retainers
on the coast of wild southern Italy and organized an army
of 100,000 Italian Catholic peasants, defeating the best
armies that the French Revolutionaries could throw at him?
And then, retaking Naples for the Bourbons, tried without
much success to restrain the faithful peasants who severed
the heads of any “liberal” or revolutionary they could
find in that city (tossing the heads over the royal palace
gates to salute the return of their rightful king!?)
Or Andreas Hofer in Austria, who lead a tremendous uprising
of Catholic volk against the French? Yes, we know about
the Vendee, the Chouans in Normandy, and of course, the
pre-Carlists revolt against Revolution in Spain, but we
need to focus the reactions in other Catholic countries
as well, and see the reaction, both popular AND intellectual
across the board.
I think De Maistre was part of that.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Please forgive the multiple typos! It’s early morning
here, and my eyes aren’t open yet. “Lost Persos” should
read “Las Persas"---my Spanish scholar friends will kill
me if I don’t get that right!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I do seem to have been unjust to de Maistre’s memory; I trust he will forgive me and hope you will excuse me. I still think there was much of what we would now call neoconnery on the European Right, and that many of those who promoted the Right, even in the Fifties, were similar. Not Wilhelmsen, though, nor was that in any way the spirit of Triumph. I don’t think I went so far as to give that impression, but it wouldn’t hurt to make that clear.
Burke is the fellow I keep coming back to. He loved order as much for the sake of liberty as for its own sake, but he loved liberty as a Christian, not as a libertine. I realize that FW, at least in 1966, found it hard to go along with the conservative admiration of EB because the latter was not a Jacobite; but then, neither was the Pope.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I appreciate Dr. Cathey’s comments on De Maistre and other anti-Revolutionary writers and activists and my thanks also to Mr. Purcell for his clarification.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Boyd Cathey’s remarks on De Maistre is just what this website should be about: clarifying the “Tory” tradition against the Whig and “Far Right” traditions. Thanks, Boyd Cathey!
The Neocons—I have to say this again—do NOT have their roots in Counter-Revolutionary
Conservatism. Their roots instead go all the way back to the Exclusion Crisis in 1678-81. Indeed, tongue in cheek, they can be called “kinder, gentler” Cromwellians. They took over in England in 1688, called themselves Whigs, and misrepresented the events of that year. In 19th C Europe on the Continent they were called Nationalist Liberals. In Britain, the Whigs, sadly, joined with the English version of the Jeffersonian tradition, the Low Church and Non-Conformist “Radicals”. In America, they are the Hamiltonians. Their chief theoretician is Hobbes. Their religion is Latitudinarian.
Their key figures are “the Immortal Seven” of 1688, Walpole, Hamilton, Fox, Cavour, Lincoln. Their constituency are fiscal estate, not landed.
Their program is neither Tory nor Jeffersonians:
1. Centralization in a massive national state
2. Control by that national state of the currency through a Bank that issues fiat money
3. Welfare for bankers and manufacturers
4. Imperial Expansion by that central state
5. opposition to the Catholic Church
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And to those who think that Sid and I fight all the time,
I would add that I generally agree with his genealogy
here. We probably have differences with terminology, e.g.
as to exactly what is “far right” or that awful term,
“clerical fascism,” but at least for England and the USA
I think he has it essentially correct. On the continent
I think we would have more substantial differences.
One addendum: One of the criticisms made of the Church
in the 19th century (or at least its praxis) is that it
tended to subinfeudate itself to the “throne” to the point
that the two--altar and throne--became almost indistinguishable
in the minds of many. Superficially, that view is certainly
understandable. After all, kings were seen for 1500 years
as representing the temporal portion of the Gelasian “two
swords” of governance (i.e., the spiritual, by the Churhc; and
the temporal by the state). At Rheims kings were annointed
with a blessed oil, a kind of sacramental; the Holy Roman
emperors (up to 1806) occupied a primogeniture position
among heads of state in Christendom (despite the descendants
of Clovis in “la belle France"). Of course, among the Catholic
population, as well among Catholic intellectuals, a defense
of the faith meant, equally in practical terms, the defense
of the monarchy and the king, whose role was to administe
secular and temporal justice and secure the common good
in his sphere. Thus, the counter-revolutionaries of the
first generation (1799-1815) post the Revolution, almost
inevitably identified the battle for the “sword” of the
faith with the “sword” of the throne, and legitimately so.
A second generation of counter-revolutionaries, better
called “traditionalists” (not in the theological or
fideist sense), men like Jaime Balmes, Louis Veuillot,
and others, understood that it was not simply a question
of the FORM of government, but the DUTIES or obligations
of the state vis-a-vis the Church and religion, that was
critical. A Venetian (or Florentine) Republic or an elective
Polish monarchy could fulfill the Gelasian mandate of the
“two swords” as well as “los Reyes Catolicos” in Spain or
“son majeste Chretien” in France. The key, of course, was
that the state undertake its responsibilities. As its powers
came also directly from God (and Leo XIII reminded Catholics in his
encyclicals, particulary Immortale Dei and Diuturnum), it
had a solemn obligation to administer justice and secure
the common good and in so doing reflect, in its proper
sphere, the truths of the faith (e.g., thus to encourage
the faith, support religious teaching in the schools, support Catholic institutions in society, discourage public immorality and attacks against the Church,
etc.). Indeed, as Leo XIII reminded Catholics, the primary
common good in civil society is the flourishing of the Catholic
faith socially and civilly.
The mistake of 19th century so-called “Catholic” liberals
was to advocate as the overarching goal of the Church
for a “free church in a free state.” Beginning with Pius VII,
and continuing forcefully with Gregory XVI (Mirari vos),
Bl. Pius IX (Quanta cura and the Syllabus), Leo XIII (Immortalte
Dei, Diuturnum, Libertas praestantissimum), St. Pius X
(Pascendi gregis dominandi and Notre Charge Apostolique)), Pius XI (Divini Redemptoris, Quadragesimo anno), and Pius XII (Humani generis), you
have a constant and formal condemnation of this liberal
tendancy. The Church is not bound to any set FORM of
statehood (althought St. Thomas argues convincingly for
a tempered monarchy in DE REGIMINE PRINCIPUM), but she
has insisted, as a realizable ideal, that the state power
as it receives its authority directly from God, administer
justice and the common good, reflecting the truths that
the Church teaches socially and civilly.
Of course, as Leo XIII made also clear, in the modern world
it has become apparent that the age of Catholic monarchs
and Catholic states may seem like ancient history. In such
cases, the Church required as a minimum, full rights to
evangelize and teach and perform its essential functions.
The difference between this and the liberal idea is that
for the Church the IDEAL remained a moral unity between the
“two swords,” that they indeed work together to achieve
a common goal, from two perspectives, one secular, the other
religious, but which cannot be disjoined without damage
to society and the work of the Church. The minimum is/was
just that: a minimum, but never the ideal or desired goal.
As Pope Leo wrote the Primate of Spain,the ideal remains, formally and doctrinally, a Catholic state and a Catholic society, where the state takes seriously
its obligations. Thus, even in our secularized times,
you saw JP II pleading with the Irish not to remove the
clause in their constitution that states that Ireland is
a “Christian” nation, and only a week or so ago, Benedict
XVI on relay TV addressing over 1 million Spaniards, asking
them almost directly to defeat the Socialist Zapatero
government, to oppose gay marriage and abortion, and to
restore LAWS that would do as much.
Despite the unsettling praxis of the past 40 years (I was
in Spain when Vatican officials put pressure on General
Franco and the Spanish state to renounce all its hitheto
obligations in regard to religion in the public square;
you cannot imagine how appalling that was), government
owes its authority to God, and, whether it wishes to
acknowledge it or not, it has obligations to secure the
common good, chief of which is to create conditions favorable
to the propagation and flourishing of the faith. Since
Pius XI and Quas primas, many theologians would state that
this is de fide (i.e., the social sovereignty and kingship
of Christ in society).
So, indeed, the old defenders of “altar and throne” were
not wrong. They understood that the “throne” exercised
its responsibilities (or should do so) with a secondary
authority from God, and, as long as it did so (importan
caveat!) was deserving of obedience. And they understood
also, perhaps instinctively, that the Church was assisted
in its mission by temporal authority which understood its
obligations in secular matters.
And the USA in 2007? Interesting question....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Again a fine post from Boyd Cathey. And there is almost nothing in it that I disagree with.
I’m now reading Richard A. Webster, The Cross and the Fasces. When finished, I’ll have a better idea of Italian Clerical Fascism. 1960 might suggest the work is dated, but because the Vatican doesn’t publish its archives until a century passes, Webster might have to do.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nicholas Farrell’s relatively recent bio of “il Duce” has much of the topic that may be of interest. I think Taki mentioned it favorably in a fairly redent column he wrote for these pages. Farrell tends to be somewhat sympathetic---I have the book and it is a good read.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<<And the USA in 2007? Interesting question....>>
Not so hard to answer, here in East Alabama, 2007. Something like 0.0% Catholic; and even some large percentage of the Protestants support such things as baby murder, simply because either they or their girlfriend have needed to murder one in the recent past. But God forbid you order a beer on a Sunday. Seriously, you can’t buy any alcohol on Sundays, but you can advertise baby murderers in Atlanta and Birmingham in the phone book (there are no baby murderers local, probably because they know people that need a baby murdered will drive to either Birmingham or Atlanta).
I don’t disagree with Mr Cundiff regarding democracy in a place that is actually Catholic. But America is more like Revolutionary France than even modern Bavaria. There’s no hope in America; it’s over. It ended in 1865, and there’s no going back.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Alas, Andrew Capp, I have been looking for reasons to disagree
with your proposition about “America.” As you know, we’ve
had some disagreements in the past (i.e., about whether muhc
of the old South tradition remains--I maintain that a bit of
it does still remain). But increasingly, by fits and starts,
I think a lot of us are coming to a viewpoint that indeed
America has become more of a “Revolutionary France,” and
much less of a “conservative, regionalist Bavaria.” I still
hope and pray that you are wrong, but I have fewer and fewer
signs to the contrary. I still have hope, and the Theologicial
Virtue of Hope...but very few positive signs. Perhaps others
can suggest some?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you, Mr. Purcell for an interesting article. Regarding the polemical exchanges involving traditionalism and critiques of post-Vatican II practice and doctrine, I think it worth noting that one of the most articulate critics of the reforms was Romano Amerio, the Swiss-Italian philosopher, linguist, and philologist. Dr. Amerio’s critiques extended to very deep and penetrating considerations of the ecumenism of Pope John Paul II, and even to the texts of Vatican II’s decrees, which he amply illustrates do not enjoy an “irreformable” character. (Cardinal Biffi just reminded us that Vatican II’s teachings are “not binding.") Amerio was always respectful and never hotheaded, but his arguments were therefore all the more devastating.
Amerio was a Rosmini scholar. He was well read in Antonio Rosmini’s work (which is prodigiously voluminous from what I understand—if that’s not a too clumsy way to say it), and he quotes him copiously in his wonderful book “Iota Unum.” Notably, Amerio makes the point that Rosmini’s desire to make the liturgy more accessible to the people was not a desire to “dumb down” the liturgy at all, not even to put it in the vernacular, which was a solution “worse than the problem.” It was a move to form the people liturgically, to educate them. Yet, there are both traditionalists and defenders of the liturgical reform who criticize or praise Rosmini for just that: agitating for a vernacular liturgy.
A disciple of the deceased Amerio, Enrico Maria Radaelli, is still writing and still respectfully criticizing the reforms in a deeply scholarly way. He is also getting attention. Monsignor Antonio Livi, Dean of the Philosophy school of the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome has written an introduction to one of his works, and praised his scholarship as an important contribution to the Church’s ecclesiology. Radaelli has a web site at:
http://www.enricomariaradaelli.it/
The site is in Italian, but there are some selections in English.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My thanks to Brother André Marie. I was aware of the late Romano Amerio as one of the most cogent traditionalists in the Church, and have intended to read his work for some time now. I had no idea that his trenchant critique of crypto-modernism was in any way Rosminian in its inspiration — I surely would have mentioned that! I did get the impression that Rosmini thought some parts of the Mass, such as the Scripture readings, might well be in the vernacular, though not the Canon. (The situation might be different in the East, where the words of the Preface spoken by the priest in the West are sung by the congregation, or at least the choir. Many Western liturgical reformers who claimed Eastern inspiration did not understand the context.)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Frank Purcell,
Brother Andre Marie is right on target. Father Amerio’c
magnum opus, IOTA UNUM: A STUDY OF CHANGES IN THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH, is a reasoned, comprehensive, and convincing treatment
of what has happened in the church (and in Catholic theology)
since Vatican II. He makes some much needed distinctions
about the theological “notes” of various kinds of documents
and pronouncement, distinctions that have been lost at times
in the discussions on these threads.
Just recently there was an international theological conference
in Italy, reported on favorably by the Vatican (after a number
of years of giving Fr. Amerio’s critical work a cold-shoulder)
I am delighted to see his work getting the attention it
richly deserves. IOTA UNUM is published (both in paper
and hard back) by Sarto House, Kansas City.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Cardinal Biffi just reminded us that Vatican II’s teachings are “not binding.”
LOL
My Pope can beat up your Cardinal.
++++++++ begin quotes +++++++++++++++
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.
+++++ end quotes ++++++++++++++++
I find it amusing that opponents of the Living Magisterium/Holy Mother Church (and the Popes since PIus XII) site the personal opinions of Mr. Amerio and treat them as Holy Writ and definitive while they, at the same time, reject the binding authority of an Ecumenical Council.
Protestants in Fiddlebacks.
not even to put it in the vernacular, which was a solution “worse than the problem.”
Yes. Quite. An that was the reason for the SSH Schism being formed (Society of St Hyginus); to protest the unjust actions of Pope Damasus who ordered the Mass from Greek be changed and said in his precious, beloved, vernacular Latin.
Oh sure, he SAID he did it cause the folks didn’t know crap about Greek but the SSH knew Damasus was a modernist and prolly desired to be a Mason even though the Masons didn’t yet exist.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
+++++++++++++ begin quotes ++++++++
<I>The Ratzinger Report< /I>
It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .
Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.
To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .
I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?
+++++++++++++ end quotes ++++++++
Put that in your schismatic pipes and smoke it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hey, Spartacus, we are attempting to have an informed
and intellgent and civil conversation here, so just go
suck a lemon, please! Or better yet, go to an empty room
where you can rant all you want....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Can’t we all get along? I mean schism happens. I myself participate regularly in a(n originally) schismatic liturgy. And I don’t refer to the fact that it is the one used by the Orthodox. It is the liturgy St. Chrysostom brought with him to Constantinople from Antioch, where his church was in schism from Rome. He first entered into communion with Rome upon being elected Archbishop of Constantinople, which was in communion with both Rome and Antioch. As I remarked earlier, here or elsewhere, sometimes you really can’t tell the players without a scorecard. God can be trusted to sort the whole mess out in his own good time. All we need to do is love the truth as we see it, with openness to further understanding, and try not to hate and despise each other quite so much.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Mr. Purcell
I was enjoying the comments of Dr. Cathey,
Bro. Andre Marie, and yours on a subject with
which I am not fully acquainted. And I fully
agree with your statements that we do need to love
the truth and that a scorecard may sometimes be
required. The best way to accomplish this is to
examine what the principals believe:
“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it
is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally
to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in
him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of
the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then,
for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying,
No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for
referring it to him – that is what the dispute between
Jews and Christians is about.”
[Ratzinger, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.]
To quote just one passage of many, in John 5 Our Lord specifically tells the Jews that what is written in the Old Testament concerning Him will convict them.
John 5:39, 45-47 – “Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me… the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.”
Yes, schisms do happen; some are even continuing. And
I don’t think telling someone to suck a lemon is quite
as hateful and despicable as ignoring historical facts
or truths. Pax Vobiscum!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hey, Spartacus, we are attempting to have an informed and intellgent and civil conversation here, so just go
suck a lemon, please! Or better yet, go to an empty room where you can rant all you want....
Dr. Cathey. I understand your frustration at being, repeatedly, public corrected
by a low-life such as my own self.
And as for your claim what you are doing is “intelligent and informed,” it is no such thing as my last two posts exposed.
The tonic for your troubles is silence when it comes to attacking the Living Magisterium.
Haughty pecksniffs within this or that schism come and go but we Christian Catholics are always lurking in the wilds ready to pee on their prideful parades.
Put another way, Dr. Cathey. Suck it up, man-up, and try and begin acting like the traditionalist you claim to be.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Can’t we all get along?
Mr. Purcell, Certainly. But only insofar that getting along does not mean truth must be excluded.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As I remarked earlier, here or elsewhere, sometimes you really can’t tell the players without a scorecard. God can be trusted to sort the whole mess out in his own good time.
Mr. Purcell. This is not difficult.
At Mass, we Christian Catholics profess we believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic…
That ONE is <B> UNITY. Unity of Worship, Doctrine, Authority.
It is EASY to see who it is who severs the Bonds of Unity. One does not need to be afflatic
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Frank,
Way back in October I attempted to engage Mr. Spartacus
in some legitimate discussion, as some readers will recall
when I pointed out that the Vatican (per Cardinal Hoyos,
with specific approval from the pope) said that the SSPX
was NOT in schism. I pointed out that, unlike the liberal
mantra of the past 30 years, that, as Benedict XVI has
now asserted, the Old Traditional Latin Mass had NEVER
been outlawed (despite the so-called “binding” discilinary
decisions by the Vatican...Spartacus does not seem to understand
the difference between “binding” discipline and “binding”
doctrine). Each time I attempted to discuss rationally wiht
him, he proceeded to jump up and down and label me, variously,
a “schismatic” (false), implied that I was a “nitwit,” and
that I was “Satan’s servant” (which he repeated), and finally
impugned my masculinity. I made a conscious decision after
receiving such cordial comments, NOT to discuss with this
person, who, I repeat, in his fierce desire to advance
the faith, has apparently lost all balance.
I have given websites and quotations for those who wish
to check Spartacus’ “information.” I have suggested that
readers check out The Remnant for themselves, and the
website of the SSPX, to see if my comments are correct.
I enjoy talking with all sorts of persons, and I have no
“fear” of engagement, as I think most readers of this
thread will see, but I shall not be talking to someone who
despite his protestations and apparent love for the faith,
comes over as a nut case.
I wish Spartacus well, and offer him my prayers. But nothing
else. Peace.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The first thing to note is how Dr Cathey switches from the present topic about the putative existence of some principle whereby one is not bound by an Ecumenical Council and introduces topic/s already dealt with. (Gee, I can’t imagine why)
Way back in October I attempted to engage Mr. Spartacus in some legitimate discussion, as some readers will recall
when I pointed out that the Vatican (per Cardinal Hoyos,with specific approval from the pope) said that the SSPX
was NOT in schism.
And I responded by making the sensible observation that is the language of diplomacy. The Vatican is trying to win back the souls of those in the not yet formally/publicly declared schism.
That what Lefevbre (French for “Like Luther") did was undeniably a schismatic act according to Ecclesia Dei. When any Pope trumps or removes that judgment, then I will stop exercising my prudent and sensible judgment and cease calling schismatics those who refuse to obey the Pope.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Here are three links where the petit ecclesia (If that ain’t schism I’ll kiss Hillary’s ass)is documented by one of its former sectaries.
http://www.crc-internet.org/feb1b.htm
(I’ll just note I, obviously, do not agree with the Abbe’s inventive and imaginative spins on this or that. But, much of the case against the petit ecclesia is made here)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Spartacus does not seem to understand the difference between “binding” discipline and “binding” doctrine.
Dr. Cathey. You picked the wrong fight with the wrong man.
+++++++++++++ begin quotes ++++++++++
Pope Paul VI</B>: Excerpts from an Allocution to a Consistory on Loyalty to the Church and to the Council, 24, May 1976: AAS 68 (1976) 369-378; Not 12 (1976) 217-223</I>
We must attach to this refusal to respect the liturgical norms laid down a
special grievousness in that it introduces division where Christ’s love has gathered us together in unity, namely, into the liturgy and the eucharistic sacrifice. For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all of our children to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. <B>Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided the celebration of Mass according to the former rite would be permitted, by faculty from the Ordinary, only for aged or sick priests offering the sacrifice without a congregation. The new Ordo Missae was promulgated in place of the old after careful deliberation and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council II. For a like reason, our predecessor St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, commanded the use of the Roman Missal revised by his authority.
In virtue of the supreme authority granted to us by Jesus Christ we command the same ready obedience to the other laws, relating to liturgy, discipline,
pastoral activity, made in these last years to put into effect the decrees of
the Council. Any course of action seeking to stand in the way of the conciliar
decrees can under no consideration be regarded as a work done for the advantage
of the Church, since it in fact does the Church serious harm.
+++++++++++ end quotes ++++++++++
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Each time I attempted to discuss rationally wiht him, he proceeded to jump up and down and label me, variously, a “schismatic” (false), implied that I was a “nitwit,” and that I was “Satan’s servant” (which he repeated), and finally impugned my masculinity.
I specifically denied doing that. Either your memory is failing or you are suffering from pseudology. I specifically wrote that I would direct my comments to you, by name, if that was my intent. Let me repeat that any global use of any adjectives directed at the schism qua schism are directed in general at the members (and not all of the members) and those adjectives, comments, quips, or japes, are directed straight at you only if I use your name. Is that so hard an idea to grasp? You really do seem anxious to feel wounded. Grow a thicker skin.
Oh, on second thought maybe I did call you Satan’s servant. If I did, I was right. That is what a member of a schism is. If I didn’t, I ought have. Even Bob Dylan knows “You’ve got to serve somebody”
I made a conscious decision after receiving such cordial comments, NOT to discuss with this person, who, I repeat, in his fierce desire to advance
the faith, has apparently lost all balance.
Look, you are the one writing to me but directing it, supposedly, to Mr. Purcell. Who is unbalanced ?
I have given websites and quotations for those who wish to check Spartacus’ “information.” I have suggested that
readers check out The Remnant for themselves, and the website of the SSPX, to see if my comments are correct.
That advice proves my point. Your authoritative sources are both schismatic and openly defiant of the Successor of Peter.
You’ll quote the Holy See about the same time Hillary Clinton quotes “The Federalist.”
… but I shall not be talking to someone who despite his protestations and apparent love for the faith, comes over as a nut case.
Well, I will have to try and muster the courage to soldier on despite not only failing to win your admiration but having to endure being called a nut case. Oh, the obloquy and shame.
I wish Spartacus well, and offer him my prayers. But nothing else. Peace
And I wish you, well, would come back to the Faith :)
Lighten-up, Francis. If I did not love you would I yell and scream, cajole and bellow in an attempt to wake-you from the schism-induced somnabulence of self-satisfaction?
St. Augustine: There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism....there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
DID PAUL VI ABROGATE THE OLD MASS - QUO PRIMUM of St. Pius V?
By Rev. Fr. Raymond Dulac (Dr. of Canon law)
This article was first published in the Supplement to Itineraires No. 162
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
If the bull decrees a true law, it will be a human law whose authority is derived neither from the nature of things nor from Divine revelation, but emanates from the free will of the human legislator.
This legislator must manifest as clearly and fully as possible the nature and extent of his will:
He must state that he is laying down a true law, creating a juridical obligation, not simply expressing a wish, a recommendation, a “directive,” or even perhaps a formal expression of his will which stops short at declaring itself as the imposition of a command on those subject to him.
He must define the law’s scope in respect of time, place, and persons.
Where necessary, he must lay down precise instructions for discharging the obligations contained in his legislative decree: what it commands, what it permits and, perhaps, certain privileges which it concedes.
Where the legislation applies to subject matter which is not entirely new, the legislator must state precisely the relationship of the new law to previous law or custom.
Only partial derogation? Total abrogation?
Since the unwritten law of custom possesses a particular force peculiar to itself, he must state explicitly how much of it the new law maintains and how much it suppresses. For the formal, official expression of these various intents, there are certain “legal rules,” a set vocabulary, a propria verborum significatio, well known to jurists. The Church has never failed to observe them as singular guarantees against both arbitrary despo