The Truth served shaken, not stirred

Vivificat! - A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion ^ | 29 August 2005 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

Where Teófilo serves the Truth to another traditionalist acquaintance.

Folks, I received an e-mail of yet still another Traditionalist Catholic acquaintance yesterday, which I now I share with you. When he quotes me from a previous e-mail reply, that will be in green and in italics; when I quote him from his last e-mail, his are in blue and italics. His original message was entitled Contradiction, served on the rocks, hence my witty riposte, entitled The Truth served shaken, not stirred.

First, you have to understand that I'm not "SSPX" in the common usage of the term by the general Catholic populace. Obviously I'm not a priest of the order known as the SSPX... what I mean here is that I go to the indult. That's just what I do, so in that sense, I'm not an "SSPXer" in the generally used sense.

Good for you, friend. You're in a better position than what your statements against me had led me to believe. I ask your forgiveness for my previous belief.

But open up your ears for a minute. Listen carefully, if you will, for honesty's sake. I guess what I was hoping for was to try to point you towards a more honest response. Let me point out what I mean...The SSPX does not deny the validity of the Novus Ordo. The proposed heresy of "denial of the full ecumenical authority of V2" is so very fuzzy a phrase that if it were truly a heresy, one would have trouble committing it! lol! It is not heresy to point out that V2 was not a dogmatic council... we cannot elevate a pastoral council to a sort of honorary status of a dogmatic council. The SSPX, for all practical purposes, denies the validity of the Novus Ordo. That's what drove them to schism. If their language is not heretical, then it is heresia proxima, in regard to their statements against the 1970 Mass and the Sacramentary.

Their denial of the full ecumenical authority of Vatican II has nothing "fuzzy" about it. You know very well that Ecumenical Councils, presided by the Successor of St. Peter, are exercises in the extraordinary magisterium of the Church and therefore protected by the same infallibility and vested with the full authority of the Church, when it comes to matters of faith and morals. That Blessed Pope John XXIII intended to call, and in fact called, an Ecumenical Council is beyond dispute; that he wished the Council to be "pastoral" in no way changed the character and binding authority of the Council; that Pope Paul VI considered it so and closed it on his own authority, is a fact of history.

Those who question, nuance, or minimize the authority of the Second Vatican Council do so by manufacturing a distinction without a difference, in order to justify a spirit of selective obedience no different than the one imbuing that other wing of the Church which invokes the "spirit of Vatican II" to justify every kind of excess. Their goals may be different, but their attitude is the same.

It is not that I "don't listen." It is that I have listened too much to these arguments and in the past, they led me to shipwreck the Faith of my Fathers.

Did I ever tell you that I, for about 4 years, was Eastern Orthodox? Not Eastern Rite, but the "schismatic" variety?

I have a complete and full appreciation of the "traditional" arguments against the Novus Ordo Mass; but in my case, I went East. There, the Lord taught me many things about Christian spirituality and the normative value of Tradition, albeit on a different key. He also taught me the value of an ancient Liturgy, one older by over one thousand years than the one the Sixto-Clementine reformers had to clean up from so many medieval accretions back in the 16th century. I now can pray in Greek and Slavonic, as well as in Latin, English, and Spanish. What a blessing!

Yet, the Lord also made patent to me my hubris, my spiritual and intellectual pride, nay, arrogance, and the fundamental weakness of a Catholic Church acting without a real Primate endowed with power and jurisdiction, and the pitifulness of one man who pretended to defend such a stance as one more authentically "Catholic".

My little "traditionalist" adventure ended in crisis and then healing, for Our Eucharistic Lord brought me back to where I met him first, to Mass, and the Sacraments, as I have known them throughout my life. He is there, friend, and since He is there, nothing is lacking, nothing is absent. I lack nothing in the Church today. I am not looking for something beyond what I can find in the Church now.

I am a Roman Catholic Christian with Initial Capital Letters. The Lord has confirmed me in His Church. After 7 years of self-imposed silence, I decided to share my humble experiences with whoever cares to listen to them, which is what brought us together. I don't have to justify what I am except to the Lord, my confessor, and my wife and children. Those outside of this circle who choose to read what I write, should take my word for it.

So please, please, spare me the invitations to consider "something better." I am not going to revert to that kind of mindset! I respect the Tridentine Mass and I hope and pray that the Bishops be more generous when it comes to apply the indult. Those who adhere to the "Old Mass" are as part of the Church as I am; they are not over the Church, they are not parallel to the Church, they are not a "remnant" of the Church. They are in the Church and as such need to be guided, ministered to, and taught to like any other Catholic. But they are not going to turn back the clock either, nor are they going to lord it over the rest of us. Away with their pedantry!

This is an afterthought. Does the Novus Ordo need some modifications and perhaps restructuring? By all means, sure! But its essence is sound, you see? The accidents are the ones that need some tweaking. Perhaps we can agree on that.

Teo: please, in charity, take the time to think through these things before declaring heresy where there is none. I have no problem crying "heretic" myself, but by all means, make all claims in reference to the principles of our Faith. You haven't done so here. One is a false claim, the other is a fuzzy sort of imagined thing, and as for the rest of the sacraments, no, they have not denied their validity either. Truth, Teo. Speak the truth.

If you are in communion with the Holy See, and already attend the indulted Mass, why do you care about what the SSPX has to say? You are getting what you need where you need, in the right Church. Limit yourself to pray for their reconciliation with the Holy See and don't triangulate yourself between them and the Church! Defend the Church! Stay in the Church! Love the Church!

I am willing to qualify my statements about the SSPX, sure. If they are not in formal heresy, then they're close to it, as I said before.

"Schism, well you know that better than I do and scandal, it seems to always attach itself to both heresy and schism. So there it is. But you didn't ask me about these two."

Not necessarily so. Yes, schism most often eventually allows for the introduction of heresies as well, but this is not a necessary consequence such that to say if you find schism, you'll necessarily find heresy as well. This is not the case.

Sure. As a former Eastern Orthodox I can definitely sympathize with this assertion and appreciate its attraction. But you know, a pope may be a jerk personally and in the way he carries himself and church policy. Yet, like St. Catherine of Siena said, the Pope is also the "sweet Christ on the earth." To oppose him, to ostracize him, to ridicule him, to mock him may not be heresy, but it is a profound sin against Christian charity liable of eternal damnation, for he who lacks love, knows not God. I think that's how Saint John put it on his first Epistle. One may be a schismatic and not be guilty of material heresy and still go to hell in a hand basket.

"As for the second question, I haven't incurred any heresy, so you are not going to have the satisfaction to see me "recant" either in public or in private on this issue."

But Teo, let's be honest. You said you held the exact same position which has already been condemned by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors. To state otherwise is merely denial on your part. Would it not be best to submit to the judgment of the Church, which has already been clearly and previously rendered? The answer of course, is a resounding "yes". I am being honest. Honest! The thing is that the declarations of the popes should be applied with due attention to Natural Law and Right Reason—by who? By other popes and the bishops, primarily, and then by others outside the Teaching Church. They cannot be taken fundamentalistically by laymen like propositional truths out of their original context.

Yet, the Syllabus itself is a collection of propositions also wrenched out of their original context; they are quotes from other independent documents. That's why the Syllabus' binding authority is more problematic than the Constitutions and Declarations of the 2,500 Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

Besides, a fundamentalist reading of sacred and/or doctrinal texts is problematic enough outside the Church; don't bring this mindset into the Church, please?

"In my thought, I adhere very closely to the reasoning found in the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, entitled, "State and Church," particulary its fourth section, "Union of Church and State," which you may read here. In fact, read the entire article. It is quite illuminating." Teo... this was not the position which you put forth. I read what you put forth on your website. You originally objected to a phrase you found in my little personal manifesto I have on line. That document was a declarative document, not an explicative document. You never asked me —charitably—for an explanation of my stance until today. You contented yourself to declare me a heretic and then set out to prove that I was one via pretty mean statements in the AngelQueen boards. Only the earnestness that you have shown today by approaching me in private and your appeal to charity have saved our dialogue. See the difference? But consider this too:

When I write something I have the expectation—a naïve expectation, perhaps—that first, readers will understand that my statements are not devoid of careful reflection and that they are in fact the product of such reflection. Second, I expect from every reader—again, another naïve expectation—the benefit of the doubt, that whatever I say be interpreted in the best possible manner in light of the surrounding context and evident good intent. This expectation of mine gets particularly acute when fellow Catholics are doing the reading. My expectation then grows to be to almost a demand.

What I received from some fellow Catholics was not only the worst possible reading and interpretations of what I wrote, believed, expounded, etc., I also got verbal traps thrown my way in the manner of the Pharisees of old in order to "confound" me and expose me for the alleged fraud I was. Is that what I should expect from fellow Catholics? I don't think so. Yet, there it is.

Don't blame me if I am a wee bit miffed and avoided an online conversation with you for these reasons.

"My support for this separation should be read within that context pretty much, as well upon the clear observation that establishing the Catholic Church in a modern pluralistic society where the majority of the population is not Catholic will engender more evil than those the establishment seeks to cure. Double-effect comes to the fore, choose the lesser of the two evils."

But you still support the separation, and this is in violation of the declared position of the Catholic Church. A similar argument to yours: "observing the commands of the Church in regards to contraception in our hedonistic, sex-slaved, materialistic society where the majority of the population is not Catholic will engender more evil than... etc." What's the difference? The teaching of the Church in this example, as in yours, is still rejected. Reasons are given, yet the rejection is still a rejection.

Your argument doesn't hold water, because it mixes categories. The power and relationship of the state vis-à-vis the Church is one thing; the moral demands of the Natural Law and the Gospel as presented by the Church and which all men should follow, independently of how they govern themselves, are quite another. You cannot reason in the same manner through both of them. As you know, this is an informal fallacy, an error in informal logic.

There is another error here, one of substance. You imply that in your model of church-state union the state would have the power to enforce a contraceptive ban, for example, say, through legislation which would authorize the use of coercive means such as incarceration and/or fines. Now, is the state obligated to follow the political mandate of the Church on this matter? How does that square off with the Church's own view of the independent sphere proper to temporal power? How is this going to be enforced? You don't tell me either.

You want to jump from tight, moral one-liners to general, public legislation right away, with no mediating steps, all by mere fiat. This is the "vibe" I get when you speak of your ideal church-state relationship.

So, how do you say? Let's be honest here. You haven't thought this through. I can tell. You're missing primary source material in your reasoning; you haven't developed your theory of church and state relations on the basis of the centuries old tradition of the Church on this subject. You only have one proposition from the Syllabus of Errors to push your view, and nothing else.

Is that it? One single proposition interpreted outside Natural Law and Right Reason by one individual? Please…

"This is also the view of Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J., in his great book entitled Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice Based on the Teachings of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas:

"The separation of Church and State is not the theoretical ideal, but it is often the best working arrangement. If a religion holds that it is the only true Church, its theoretical ideal can be nothing less that all men should be members of it; in a country in which all the citizens belongs to the same religious body a separation, not merely a distinction, between the two would be a pointless fiction; but even here provision would be necessary for the toleration of possible minority groups. But in countries such as ours [the U.S.A.], where the people profess many different religions and are split up into any number of sects, a practical separation of Church and state seems to be workable arrangement. As the facts of history show, it has succeeded admirably." (p.427)." Pius IX has condemned the separation of Church and state, whether it is justified in a TAN publication or not.

I can tell you didn't like this quote from a recognized authority. I knew it, I expected it. I'm not gloating, though. I'm just observing.

You can't dismiss Fr. Fagothey's work so cavalierly. His work was used to train seminarians and was part of the curriculum of Catholic Universities well before Vatican II, nor can you dispute his conclusions drawn from Natural Law and Right Reason and made in the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas' own reflections just by waving your hand and clinging to your one-liner.

To extract one-liners from the Syllabus—a questionable endeavor to begin with—in order to hammer them, and your interpretation of them, over your fellow Catholics' heads is repulsive, contrary to the Spirit of Communion and Charity keeping the Mystical Body of Christ together, and spiritually presumptuous. It makes you equal—in accidents if not in essence—to those Protestant, anti-Catholic, King-James-Only believers who by quoting just one verse from Scripture, think they are able to prove that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

So now you know pretty much where I stand. Where do we go from here, friend? Is this going to take us closer to Christ? Because if it doesn't, don't bother trying to sway me again. I've already wasted too much time in my life following my own whims, albeit dressed as "Catholic concerns," to start again in another wild-goose chase.

I'm done exploring "traditionalist" arguments. What I'm doing now is trying to live a Catholic Christian life according to my given state in life—that of a married lay man.

If our dialogue will make us grow in Christ, fine, let's keep talking. That's what fellow-travelers are for. Otherwise, this will be my last communication to you, although you will always remain in my thoughts and prayers. The ball is in your court.

[Teófilo]

Definitely, every typo and semantic blunder found in this long, rapidly typed post, is my fault.

[TradicalRC]

It was hard to follow and somewhat rambling. I had not alternative colors as you indicated near the beginning. It might have been clearer if you gave some brief background to what initiated this particular dialogue and used a format that showed;
Teofilo:"...
Joe:"...
Perhaps with Teofilos words in bold and Joe's words in italics.

[Teófilo]

You're right. It was sort of rambling. I admit it. I apologize for that to all. This was not a formal dissertation, but a point-by-point reply "from the heart." The final product certainly reads like a long ramble. :-(

You may see the colors on my blog, unless you're using a special browser set up. I'll take you up on your suggestion if and when I ever do something like this again.

I thought I gave in my short introduction and elsewhere enought contextual clues to indicate that this was a reply to a "private" e-mail and part of a conversation in which I was approached first. I am sorry it wasn't enough.

The thread has its roots in still another thread which I also posted here in which I criticized a self-proclaimed Catholic traditionalist entity called "Tradition in Action," and their disgusting attacks against Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I would have never ever known about this outfit or even care, had it not been for the glossy pamphlet I received from them via Snail Mail.

Someone who took exception to it crossposted my critique to the boards at AngelQueen.org, wherein it was received by the local traditionalists with mockery and derision, many times aimed at me personally.

Since then, I've been able to maintain a civilized exchange with the reader who crossposted the original critique. I have acquiesced to the dialogue, albeit reluctantly because of the personal character of the countercritiques posted at AngelQueen.org. What you see here is the latest two exchanges between this reader and yours truly. Since it developed into something extensive, I decided to "blog it."

And that's the story.

-Theo.