Posted on 05/04/2004 4:49:25 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
Google turns up no hits for "drolesky coulombe". What is this "smear" to which you refer?
I think you're making a category error here. No pope is expected to be perfect or even prudent or even a "good pope." There can be popes who make wrong-headed decisions on a prudential basis. In fact all of them do so to one extent or another. For example, it would be wrong for you to condemn Pope Pius XI just because of his "condemnation of the French monarchist group Action Française," even if that was a bad, stupid, or counter-productive decision. The real question is, "Are they sincerely striving for the defense and propagation of the Catholic faith, or are they promoting a revolutionary new system of beliefs and practices?" It's the classic distinction between being faithful and being successful. It is essential that the Pope be faithful, even if his pontificate isn't successful.
You can read about the controversy (from Drolesky's point of view) at his website:
Coulombe Questions
Empty Works
Charles sent me a tongue-in-cheek defense of his position entitled "Confessions of a Catholic Occultist" which I can e-mail you if you like.
Charles's excellent writings on Catholicism, monarchy and fantasy can be found on my website:
Charles Coulombe archives
Maximilian: This is a big accusation. What evidence do you have for it?
As written by Mary Ball Martinez:
The Soviet Factor
Papal preference for the Allied side became more difficult to defend after June 1941, when this became the Soviet side. By that time Hitler's "Fortress Europe" was overwhelmingly Catholic. Germany itself then included the predominantly Catholic regions of Austria, the Saarland, and the Sudetenland, as well as Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg. Moreover, the German-allied countries of Italy, Slovenia, Slovakia and Croatia were entirely Catholic, and Hungary was mainly so. France -- including both the German-occupied northern zone and the Vichy-run south -- cooperated with Germany. Similarly, Catholic Spain and Portugal were sympathetic.
A Catholic priest, Josef Tiso, had been elected president of the German-backed Republic of Slovakia. In France, which adopted the Axis ban on Freemasonry, crucifixes went up on all public buildings, and on French coins the old official motto of the French Revolution, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," was replaced with "Family, Fatherland, Work."
Thus, Pope Pius XII found himself in the awkward position of siding with atheistic Soviet Russia, overwhelmingly Protestant Britain (with its vast, mainly non-Christian Empire), and the predominantly Protestant United States of America, against the largely Catholic "Fortress Europe." His predicament reached a climax following the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, and America's full entry into the world war. Most Catholic Americans -- including those of Italian, Irish, German, Hungarian, Slovenian, Croatian and Slovakian descent -- had regarded themselves as "isolationists." Furthermore, Communist atrocities against priests, nuns and churches during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) were fresh in their minds.
Skilled diplomat that he was, Pius XII met the challenge. He appointed the dynamic young Auxiliary Bishop of Cleveland, Michael Ready, to head a campaign to "reinterpret" Divini Redemptoris, the anti-Marxist encyclical of the previous Pope, Pius XI, and to put out the word that Soviet dictator Stalin was opening the way to religious freedom in the USSR.
The Pope's Wartime Silence
That it cost something for the head of the Catholic Church to face so many millions of European Catholics as an enthusiastic supporter of their enemies is evident from a poignant letter Pacelli wrote to Myron C. Taylor, who had been his host in New York and was now Roosevelt's envoy to the Holy See. In part, "at the request of President Roosevelt, the Vatican has ceased all mention of the Communist regime. But this silence that weighs heavily on our conscience, is misunderstood by the Soviet leaders who continue the persecution against churches and faithful. God grant that the free world will not one day regret my silence." There was indeed a "silence of Pius XII," but it was not the silence invented by Hochhuth and Friedlander.
GGII: Bottom line: had he done what the Blessed Mother requested, the couse of events leading up to WWII might have been dramatically different. I'll get back to you later on the other questions you raise.
I.e. one must truly wonder whether the promises of Christ have some validity? If you don't think they do regarding St. Peter's perpetual sucession (see Vatican I), I hear the Orthodox Church is looking for converts.
All very valid points with which I agree, especially the point about Bugnini, whom Pius XII installed to reinvent the Liturgy (not John XXIII).
It was not foolish. Maurras was an atheist who wished to use the Church for his own ends. Compare his and his movement's fate to that of the faithful Leon DeGrelle and the Christus Rex Party in Belgium, which was defended by the Vatican.
Uncharitable? For poking holes in the traditionalist preening and pretensions constantly on display around here? For not ignoring heresy?
Your accusation of heresy against him is based solely on your claim that "baptism of fire" is another term for "baptism of desire." First, it is clear that you have no basis for any accusation of heresy, since Drolesky makes no mention whatever of baptism of desire. [snip]
The worst that you could accuse Drolesky of is ignorance that the term "baptism of fire" could be used to refer to "baptism of desire." But is that in fact the case? Or is it just a case of your incorrect translation of the Latin? Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia translation of the same section of the Summa that you posted. Please note that they translate "flaminis" as "spirit," not "flame."
Max, time to break out a Latin Dictionary. Surely you own one?
Flaminis - flame, wind, fire. Spiritus - Spirit. Pretty different words, wouldn't you say?
"Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti" is the full phrase used in the theological manuals - "Baptism in the flame of the Holy Spirit", commonly called "Baptism of Desire". It is also analogical to Trent's use of "votum Baptismi" - "the solemn vow to receive Baptism". There is no distinction to be made between the terms. The SSPX cogently explains this here:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_baptisms.htm
You do listen to what they say, don't you?
If not, how about St. Alphonsus?
"Baptismus autem flaminis est perfecta conversio ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cum voto explicito, vel implicito veri baptismi fluminis, cujus vicem supplet (juxta Trid. sess. 14. c. 4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omnem reatum poenae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritûs sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur. De fide autem est per baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari, ex c. Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. et Trid. sess. 6. c. 4. Ubi dicitur neminem salvari posse sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto." - "However, Baptism of desire is a perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with an explicit or implicit wish of true Baptism of water, the change of which it supplies (according to Trent, sess. 14, c. 4) as far as the remission of guilt, but not as far as the impression of the character, neither as far as removing all pain of punishment: it is called of desire [lit. blowing], because it is by the impulse of the Holy Ghost, which is called a blowing. It is de fide that men are saved even by baptism of desire, taught in the canon 'Apostolicam' and Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved without the washing of regeneration, or the desire thereof."
http://www.ihm-church.org/baptism.htm
The literal translation of the root word "flamma" is "flame, fire". See here:
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/
One my bicker over translating it "flame" or "wind" or "blowing" or "fire", but it certainly does not mean "Spirit" except in terms of a previously known relation between the word "flamma" and the Holy Spirit and Baptism of Desire as we term it commonly in English. If Mr. Drolesky had the least bit of education in this matter, he would know what was being referred to concerning Rabbi Zolli, and wouldn't have made the error of formally denying the existence of Baptism of Desire, or the possibility of Rabbi Zolli receiving it.
Let's get this straight. A novel thing called "baptism of fire" is what actually converted Israel Zolli. The "baptism of water" was merely "an act of formal adherence." Huh? There is no such thing as baptism of fire. There is no such thing as an act of formal adherence. The Sacrament of Baptism is a sacramental act by which the very inner life of the Blessed Trinity is flooded into a soul by means of sanctifying grace as Original Sin is flooded out of that soul. To speak in such terms is to deny, almost heretically, the significance of the Sacrament of Baptism. The alleged scholar interviewed by ZENIT is pretty much saying that in Zolli's case the "baptism of water" is a symbolic act that merely ratifies an earlier baptism of fire.
This is an explicit denial of Baptism of Desire and its relation to Baptism in Water. When someone has Baptism of Desire, and later receives Baptism of Water, the Sacrament does not accomplish what the Desire has already done. Rather than remitting original sin and other sins (already done by Baptism of Desire), it formally incorporates a person into the Church (an act of formal adherence, in other words).
Nothing you can say here will save Drolesky from his blatant heresy. The question is, why are you defending it, when you should know better?
So unlike Hermann, the fathers of the English Dominican Province believe in a "baptism of spirit," not a "baptism of fire," by means of "literally translating" the words of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The Dominican Fathers used commonly used terms so as not to be misunderstood. The use Mr. Drolesky quotes is from an Italian, who obviously might feel differently about how to translate the Latin. What is not in dispute at all, except perhaps by you, is that what Mr. Drolesky denies the existence of and says is heresy is a precise description of what we call "Baptism of Desire" in English, applied to the case of Rabbi Zolli.
Somehow I knew you wouldn't admit that you were wrong. And I certainly didn't expect that you would admit that you were being dishonest by posting only the Latin version without the English translation in order to create a false impression. The origin of the Latin word "flamina" is irrelevant to the fact that in this usage it means "spirit" according to people who know what they are talking about and who were assigned to perform a literal translation of St. Thomas Aquinas, namely the English Dominican Fathers in 1920. Are you going to claim next that based on their translation, the Dominicans were also denying "baptism of fire"?
And if you intend to stand by your absurd mis-translation and calumnious accusations of heresy, the least you can do is to provide one published source which uses the term "baptism of fire" instead of "baptism of spirit." Failing to do that, your whole argument collapses utterly. If you were to find such a published source for the term "baptism of fire" in the Summa, you will have succeeded in demonstrating that the person denigrating the conversion of the Chief Rabbi of Rome had some basis for using that term.
Nothing you can say here will save Drolesky from his blatant heresy.
Ha, ha. So the Living Magisterium now exists in the person of Hermann, and he has pronounced his infallible decree. Hermann locuta est, causa finita. Sorry, but even the bare minimum of Christian charity indicates that you need a lot more evidence before you accuse someone of heresy. Evidence such as the person even mentioning or referring to the doctrine in question, since in this case Drolesky made no reference to Baptism of Desire and was not even mentioning, nonetheless denying, the doctrine in the least.
Christ never promised the Seat would not be vacated. If he did, then a Pope would never die.
Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
45 See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48.
46 From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the Council of Ephesus (D no. 112).
47 Leo I, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146).
48 Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946).
An interregnum between Popes is vastly different than a claim that the See of Rome has been vacant since 1978, or 1963, or 1958, or whenever.
"If anyone the says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema." (Vatican I, Dogmatica Constitution on the Church, Chapter II, Canon)
Its tough to see a 48 year gap as "perpetual successors", especially when there have been four claimants universally acknowledged by the Church, and especially when Catholic theologians have long taught that the acceptance of a claimant by the Church is a fact closely related to revelation - it is termed theologically certain, denial of which is a mortal sin against the faith.
See for example, this Sedevacantist page on John Lane's website, which uses as an example of this theological note "Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI" to illustrate "a truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain."
http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/theolnotes.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.