On Papolatry

Catholic Family News ^ | December 1999 | William Marra

[Mershon]

On the nature of true obedience. Written by Dr. William Marra, a disciple of Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called a 20th Century "doctor of the Church." But then again, Pope Pius XII is no longer part of the "Living Magisterium," right?

[Mershon]

ping

[Maximilian]

Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called a 20th Century "doctor of the Church."

This sounds like an apocryphal quote. I'd like to see a source on that one. The only source I've ever seen is his wife, Alice von Hildebrand, who seems to be making it her life's work to push for her deceased husband's canonization. But it seems highly unlikely that she will ever succeed, and I really question the idea that Pope Pius XII called von Hildebrand anything of the sort.

What was the occasion? What was the context? Is there any written proof of such a statement?

I've noticed that for many years Bernard Haring was always referred to as "the greatest living moral theologian." It was like a Homeric epithet. They even put quotes around the phrase. But it was never clear who they were supposed to be quoting.

[bornacatholic]

that wasnt about obedience.

the Living Magisterium must be obeyed - not theologians, famous or not.

and who coined the word "papalotry" which, imo, is a sly way to excuse disobedience to an Ecumenical Council and/or the Living Magisterium. To me, Papalotry would seem to involve worship of the Pope

This was very poorly written and poorly reasoned; it is very confused thinking and results in many readers (the cfn gang, for example) thinking they can disobey with impunity - just like the liberals they ape

[AskStPhilomena]

"He can also be a disaster for the faith even if he is a good person."

The Pope John Paul the Great crowd are not going to enjoy statements like that.

[bornacatholic]

St. Thomas Aquinas: “We must abide rather by the Pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in the divine Scriptures.”(Quodlibetum IX,Q.8, Quaest. Quodlibetales)

I guess Dr. Marra and DVH know better?

[bornacatholic]

(1) "{W}e {cannot} pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that 'without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.' But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864)]

*scratch a traditionalist reveal a modernist

[Mershon]

Perhaps you can explain to me in details what you think was poorly reasoned and not understandable, and then perhaps I could couch it in language you might be able to decipher.

[Mershon]

For once, I would like like to discuss the contents of the article. Do you have any assessments?

[Mershon]

Didn't you post this on another thread? What is with the bold? Do you have a seeing problem?

This has nothing to do with the contents of the article. Do you have any constructive assessments of the details of the article, or are you simply going to go from post to post with your two most favorite paragraphs. No faithful traditionalist Catholic denies the quotes you posted. Next...

[Mershon]

"Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church."

From Ecclesia Dei Aflicta, written by current reigning Pope John Paul II. He calls upon THEOLOGIANS to explain those points of doctrine, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW, which have not been well understood by some sections of the Church.

So in this Motu Proprio, the Pope refers us to the theologians on the specific doctrinal clarifications of Vatican II in light of Tradition. It looks like we're being obedient to the Pope by referring to the theologians. Now what?

[Maximilian]

I would like like to discuss the contents of the article. Do you have any assessments?

You are the one who brought up the quote about von Hildebrand. Now you want to run away from it.

My assessment of this article is that Marra is trading on von Hildebrand's name for authority. But von Hildebrand is a very questionable authority. He was busy promoting personalism, both before and after the council. After Vatican II he was willing to admit that other people had made mistakes, but he never retracted his own contributions to the mess. His widow is still busy going around promoting personalism, and trying to pretend that it is compatible with traditional Catholicism.

As far as the hair-splitting on papalotry, I have to agree with the neo-Catholics on this one. The pope can't go around making indefensible decisions, even on prudential matters. His every word should be carefully measured, and his every silence, for that matter. Catholics should be able to trust that he is acting for their best interest in all matters, not just questions of dogma. I'm afraid that trust has been shattered, at least for the time being.

[bornacatholic]

in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition...

*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition.

The piece by Marra was pure B.S. I posted the Tradition illustrating it was BS because Marra was inventing words to provide an escape clause for those unwilling to be obedient to the Living Magisterium

[gbcdoj]

*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition.

Mershon's masters' thesis was on the compatibility of Dignitatis Humanae with preconciliar teaching: "Dignitatis Humanae & Vatican II Reaffirm the Traditional Teaching of Christ’s Kingship Over Hearts, Minds and Wills, Families and Societies". See here.

[gbcdoj]

He was busy promoting personalism, both before and after the council ... His widow is still busy going around promoting personalism, and trying to pretend that it is compatible with traditional Catholicism.

Why is personalism incompatible with Catholicism?

[Tantumergo]

"*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition."

I'll take up the challenge and cite Vatican II as being consistent with Holy Tradition in denying the possibility of new doctrine pertaining to the deposit of faith:

From LG n.25:

"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) BUT A NEW REVELATION THEY DO NOT ACCEPT AS PERTAINING TO THE DIVINE DEPOSIT OF FAITH(47*)"

Here it is exactly in line with the Vatican I Constitution Pastor Aeternus.

Unfortunately the Holy Father does not appear to be aware of this as he suggests Vatican II violates both itself and Vatican I. To requote the passage that Mershon quoted:

"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in POINTS OF DOCTRINE which, perhaps because THEY ARE NEW, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church."

As Vatican II and Vatican I both testify, "new doctrine" cannot pertain to the deposit of faith and therefore there is no obligation on any Catholic to accept it.

So either:

A) The Holy Father is right, VII contains "new" doctrine which the faithful are not obliged to accept because VII itself says this cannot be part of the deposit of faith.

or

B) The Holy Father is wrong, VII contains no "new" doctrine in which case there is no justification for any post-conciliar changes which were premised on the existence of putative "new" doctrine.

In either case the Novus Ordo version of the Church is shown to be built on sand and will eventually self-destruct due to its own inherent internal inconsistencies.

Looks like Vatican II will come out on the side of tradition after all.

;)

[gbcdoj]

New points of doctrine is not an equivalent statement to "new revelation".

It is equally certain that the doctrine of justification defined at Trent was, in some sense, new also. The refutation and remedy of errors cannot precede their rise; and thus the fact of false developments or corruptions involves the correspondent manifestation of true ones. (Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 58)

[Tantumergo]

"New points of doctrine is not an equivalent statement to "new revelation"."

Then why did the Council Fathers approve the footnote which emphatically does refer to "new doctrine?:

Pastor Aeternus Ch 4 n.6:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter

NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known some NEW DOCTRINE,

but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Also the VI Fathers took a fairly dim view of Newman's idea of doctrinal development and circumscribed the notion with these:

On Faith & Reason Ch 4 n.14:

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

On Faith & Reason Canon 3:

"If anyone says that
it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema."

While Newman said, "It is equally certain that the doctrine of justification defined at Trent was, in some sense, new also.", you surely cannot be implying that he meant anything other than the mere phrasing of the doctrine?

Or do you think he meant some doctrine that was unknown to the Apostles?

[gbcdoj]

Of course there is no new revelation or new doctrine revealed by revelation. The Pope agrees on this. "New points of doctrine" is not equivalent to "new revelation" or "new revealed doctrine". It means what Newman said: it was new in the sense that it was a development of doctrine.

CCC 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

[Maximilian]

Why is personalism incompatible with Catholicism?

Just off the top of my head: it's not part of Catholic Tradition, and the magisterium has definitively stated that Thomism must remain the philosophy of the Church. Personalism is based on Jewish and atheist sources. It begins with radically different presumptions, and ends up with radically different conclusions.

Personalism was introduced as part of the anti-Tradition nouvelle theologie. Personalist philosopy has never existed in traditional Catholicism. Therefore, anyone who wishes to believe and practice the Catholic faith of all time will have nothing to do with personalism.

Personalism is the underlying philosophy of the entire Vatican II revolution. Therefore, anyone who wishes to join the Vatican II revolution against the Catholic faith will be attracted to personalism, but anyone who wishes to avoid the "spirit of Vatican II" will stay far away from any taint of personalism.