In June 2014, the Pontifical International Theological Commission, tasked with “helping the Holy See and primarily the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in examining doctrinal questions of major importance,” released a document entitled, Sensus Fidelium in the Life of the Church.
In keeping with the bureaucratic excellence that has come to define the Vatican apparatus in recent decades, this particular tome runs some 22,000 words in length. (More on that later.)
While this document is the result of a five year long effort, the timing of its release (if I may play the cynic) seems rather fortuitous for those who, like Pope Francis, consider Cardinal Kasper’s theology an example of “profundity and serenity.” (Confession: I’m not really playing.)
I mean, what better to grease the skids upon which the Synod of Bishops on Marriage and Family will submit its recommendations to the pope, and to the world, than a heightened sense of appreciation for the prophetic voice of the laity?
In any event, given the post-conciliar program of anthropomization that is once again running full throttle after having been temporarily tempered by Benedict XVI (only to be turbo-charged by the elevation of Jorge Bergoglio), this text merits considerable scrutiny.
For the sanity of both readers of this space and the present writer, we’ll undertake this task in relatively bite sized portions, in the present case with an examination of articles 73-75.
The sensus fidelium can be an important factor in the development of doctrine, and it follows that the magisterium needs means by which to consult the faithful.
While this particular claim isn’t likely to raise the eyebrows of many among the undernourished masses, it’s newchurch speak plain and simple.
What parents among us “consult” their children on “questions of major importance,” to quote from the mission statement of the Pontifical Commission?
I’ll tell you which ones: The ones whose kids are functional orphans thanks to the spinelessness of feckless elders who fancy themselves “friends” to their children rather than their parents.
If you listen closely, you may hear the Cotton Candy Catholic choir pining in response, “But the clergy must be informed as to the mind of those they are called to shepherd.”
To which all I can say is, “Get thee to a dictionary!”
To “consult” goes beyond merely engaging another for information; rather, it is a means of attaining the advice and the guidance of the one consulted. For instance, people routinely consult their attorney, their account, their mentor, etc.
The sacred hierarchy does well to examine the faithful in order to assess their condition; to learn about their challenges; to measure their strengths and their weaknesses as a means of determining their needs, but consult them? No, not in a healthy Church.
The text then provides further insight into how the magisterium benefits from the sensus fidelium:
The connection between the sensus fidelium and the magisterium is particularly to be found in the liturgy. The faithful are baptised into a royal priesthood, exercised principally in the Eucharist, and the bishops are the ‘high priests’ who preside at the Eucharist, regularly exercising there their teaching office, also. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the life of the Church; it is there especially that the faithful and their pastors interact, as one body for one purpose, namely to give praise and glory to God. The Eucharist shapes and forms the sensus fidelium and contributes greatly to the formulation and refinement of verbal expressions of the faith, because it is there that the teaching of bishops and councils is ultimately ‘received’ by the faithful.
The main points presented here are:
1) The liturgy is a venue wherein the doctrine of the faith is “ultimately received” by the faithful.
2) The faithful (who are just oozing this sensus fidelium) in some way influence the teaching office of the Church via their “interaction” with the sacred hierarchy in the liturgy.
These assertions are worthy of close consideration for reasons we’ll discuss momentarily.
Participation in the liturgy is indeed one of the most profound ways in which the children of the Church are formed in the image of Christ. This happens as they “acquire the true Christian spirit dispensed therein by Christ Himself as from an indispensable font.” (cf Tra le sollecitudini – Pope Pius X, 1903)
This liturgical reality is not to be confused, however, with the kind of formation that one might expect to receive in a classroom wherein students and teachers interact.
In spite of the Theological Commission’s claims, it is not “ultimately” in the Eucharist that “the teaching of bishops and councils is received by the faithful.”
To be charitable almost to a fault, this is at best an ambiguous assertion, the set-up for which is the premise that was slyly introduced two sentences earlier; namely, the suggestion that the action of the bishop at Holy Mass is well considered a function of his “teaching office.”
While the threefold munus of Christ made manifest in the bishop who teaches, sanctifies and governs in His name is such that one function is never entirely independent of the others, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, being no less than the very work of Redemption carried out in our midst, is overwhelmingly an expression of the sanctifying office of the bishop.
This is so much the case that the teaching and governing offices of the bishop are really best understood to be reflected in the liturgy, more so than explicitly expressed therein.
You see, by teaching and governing, the bishop necessarily regulates the liturgy and protects it from corruption and defect. As such, while it can be said that the exercise of said offices is discernable in the liturgy; it is quite another to suggest that the liturgy is that through which the bishop teaches and governs.
Why belabor the point?
Within these subtle distinctions lie some of the very falsehoods that gave rise to the protestantization of the liturgy with the birthing of the Novus Ordo, a bastard rite that invites an exaggerated focus on Bible readings, sermons, and the activity of laymen (the “bread and butter” of the heretics’ Sunday services) such that the true and propitiatory Sacrifice that is offered by the priest who acts in persona Christi unto the sanctification of the people is frequently overshadowed.
The notion of liturgy-as-catechetical-moment was fueled by the same liberal promoters of the early 20th century liturgical reform movement who also desired a Mass that would serve as a platform for fostering ecumenism and inspiring social justice initiatives.
Obviously, they got their way after Vatican II, and with the coupe now a fait accompli, the newly configured rite is being used as a platform for launching a newly configured theology. (In this, one can see the warnings contained in the Ottaviani Intervention coming to life.)
From early Christian times, the Eucharist underpinned the formulation of the Church’s doctrine because there most of all was the mystery of faith encountered and celebrated, and the bishops who presided at the Eucharist of their local churches among their faithful people were those who gathered in councils to determine how best to express the faith in words and formulas: lex orandi, lex credendi.
Don’t let the Latin phrase fool you; the picture being painted here is not derived from tradition.
The authors of this text want you to believe that “from early Christian times” (translation: before the triumphalistic hierarchs of latter ages needlessly heaped embellishments upon the pure faith) the bishops, after having interacted with their faithful in the sacred liturgy, wherein the shepherds are afforded an opportunity to drink from the well of the sheep’s sensus fidelium, departed the local churches for the councils that fabricated the doctrinal formulae woven from the threads of insight gathered from the faithful.
Right, and St. Paul was little more than the Judaizers’ messenger boy at the Council of Jerusalem.
At this, we arrive at a crucial point in the document with the suggestion that the faithful play an active role in the “formulation and refinement of verbal expressions of the faith” relative to the Church’s moral doctrine.
This is where the rubber meets the road, particularly with the upcoming Synod just months away.
What is less well known, and generally receives less attention, is the role played by the laity with regard to the development of the moral teaching of the Church. It is therefore important to reflect also on the function played by the laity in discerning the Christian understanding of appropriate human behaviour in accordance with the Gospel. In certain areas, the teaching of the Church has developed as a result of lay people discovering the imperatives arising from new situations. The reflection of theologians, and then the judgment of the episcopal magisterium, was based on the Christian experience already clarified by the faithful intuition of lay people. Some examples might illustrate the role of the sensus fidelium in the development of moral doctrine:
i) Between canon 20 of the Council of Elvira (c. 306 AD), which forbade clerics and lay people to receive interest, and the response, Non esse inquietandos, of Pope Pius VIII to the bishop of Rennes (1830), there is a clear development of teaching, due to both the emergence of a new awareness among lay people involved in business as well as new reflection on the part of theologians with regard to the nature of money.
ii) The openness of the Church towards social problems, especially manifest in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum (1896), was the fruit of a slow preparation in which lay ‘social pioneers’, activists as well as thinkers, played a major role.
iii) The striking albeit homogeneous development from the condemnation of ‘liberal’ theses in part 10 of the Syllabus of Errors (1864) of Pope Pius IX to the declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), of Vatican II would not have been possible without the commitment of many Christians in the struggle for human rights.
A great deal could be written in response to each of these three examples (quite possibly the only ones the authors of this text could muster), most especially numbers one and three. For brevity sake, we’ll content ourselves with the following observations:
i) This is a “go to” argument presented by those who are wont to demonstrate that the Church at one time held a doctrine that was later deemed to be wrong. (It’s rather telling that this is where the authors of this text felt compelled to turn in the first place.)
The issue raised here is not, properly speaking, about “receiving interest;” rather, it is about usury; i.e., charging for the “use” of money. The latter is, without question, still considered a sin; a condemnation based on the Church’s unchanged understanding of the “nature of money” according to St. Thomas Aquinas.
What “changed” in this case is not the moral teaching of the Church, but the way in which money was used (lent and borrowed). New economic conditions gave rise to new “commodities” in the marketplace; things like risk, the negative influence of inflation, and the loss of other potential gains via investment, each one having a certain value that could be estimated in order to calculate a reasonable interest, the charging of which is not a sin.
ii) Again, the moral teachings themselves were not so much developed with the input of the sensus fidelium as they were applied to the changing concrete circumstances of the people whose “major role” was simply living their lives.
iii) This topic is nothing short of book worthy. (See Was John Courtney Murray Right?)
Note just how far we have come in the revolution: Here we see the captains of newchurch plainly admitting that a certain disconnect exists between the text of Dignitatis Humanae and the infallible teaching of the Church that preceded it, with their only justification for this “striking development” being an unsubstantiated claim of homogeneity. To say that this particular citation remains an open question among highly respected theologians is an understatement.
Thus are the best three “examples” the authors could provide as evidence of the influencing power of the sensus fidelium on the Church’s moral teachings; the same that supposedly guides the hierarchy as it “consults” the faithful.
A correct understanding of the sensus fidelium and its influence on the Church’s doctrinal formulae is to recognize that the sacred magisterium at times clarifies, defines and makes explicit, amid the changing circumstances in which laymen live and work, that which the entire Church, including the faithful, have always believed.
Over the course of the centuries, the “refinement of verbal expressions” of the faith was very often necessitated by the activity, not of faithful laypersons who somehow acted as oracles that enlightened the hierarchy, but by heretics who made headway in luring the faithful into their errors, thus providing the impetus for the shepherds to spring into action in protection of the flock.
This is a far cry from the image painted in the articles under discussion; propositions that reflect the influence of neo-modernists who dream of a day when the bishops will consult with the faithful in search of their guidance.
At this point, I think we’ve tortured ourselves enough.
In conclusion, a word is in order about the disturbing trend wherein modern day churchmen produce increasingly verbose treatises on matters of faith.
Contrast, if you will, the inaugural encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi, a text of some 4,500 words in length, with the first encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, a text of more than 23,000 words.
The program of Pius X was eminently simple, Instaurare Omnia in Christo, to restore all things in Christ; drawing as it did from the very foundations of Christian doctrine, it needed but little explanation.
The program of John Paul II, by contrast, drew from the “rich inheritance of the recent pontificates … [which] has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council,” an operation founded upon sheer novelties, the likes of which required verbosity simply to explain.
Sure, there’s a place for lengthy texts (Pascendi comes to mind), but in the hands of the neo-modernists, such documents are tools of deception wherein the true Faith is all too often juxtaposed alongside dangerous novelties (Evangelii Gaudium comes to mind).
This is the case with the document, Sensus Fidelium in the Life of the Church, and all of us know what a little leaven can do.
Louie, we all owe you much thanks for wading through this document; it may not be an exaggeration to surmine that it has the power to cause fatalities via intense boredom.
—–
Of course, turning to the sensus fidelium has long been a tactic of liberals trying to undermine the Church’s moral teaching, simply ignoring the fact that there is no valid sensus that contradicts truth.
—–
If the Syllabus and DH are “homogeneous”, why was the council called an “anti-Syllabus” by one of its proponents? Why did the Masons rejoice that their heresy of religious liberty, previously repeatedly condemned throughout the centuries, had been raised to the altars (not really, of course)?
—–
As I believe you observed once before, could these people be any more transparent?
—–
Condemned then, but not now:
—–
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
—–
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
—–
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
—–
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
Very good. I urge the Pope to pound the traditionalists on this issue of usury. There is no question the Church changed her position on the taking of interest. It is the clearest example of development of doctrine leading to an opposite position being taken from the previous one. And it all happened before Vatican II. And, most “traditionalists” love them some capitalism. It really is the perfect issue to show how illogical is tradism.
Even though Traditionalism and Capitalism are at odds with each other given Catholic Social Teaching.
Sorry, forgot to add that Capitalism was original called Individualism/
Maybe it is an American phenomenon but it has been my experience that the people who call themselves “traditionalist” are the same type that would HATE to see the former prohibition of the taking of ANY interest reinstated. For Heaven’s sake, most traditionalists I know practically worship our first divorced and remarried president Ronald Reagan and listen to the thrice divorced drug addict Rush Limbaugh every day.
–
Having said that, I agree with you. There is no way to reconcile capitalism with real traditionalism and in fact this is one area where there is not an iota of difference between the pre and post V2 popes.
Of course, historically it’s been the Jews that have been guilty of usury. The modern hierarchy doesn’t want to upset “dialogue” ….so for the sake of ecumenism usury is no longer openly condemned.
Btw, since when has a grave sin ceased to be a grave sin, as usury as has always been? I believe usury was regarded as a sin on par with sodomy, as shown in Donte’s inferno.
Ganganelli, I don’t think anything has changed regarding usury. Can you cite a doctrinal statement where it is explained that it is now OK for the faithful to be financially robbed and raped?
___
Our current economic system is not capitalism BTW. It’s based on fractional reserve banking, hyper usury if you will, and most definitely not liked by “trads.” It incorporates an inflationary growth model using a fiat currency, exploited by bankers to accumulate real wealth and power. It will eventually implode on itself like a giant ponzi scheme though.
Modern capitalism liked by traditionalists – right! Somebody hasn’t been reading Traditionalist publications in… well, ever.
I need to advance the hypothesis that you don’t know any traditionalists. I don’t mean to suggest that you’re being untruthful, but that perhaps these folks are not – representative.
—–
They sure aren’t at the ICK and SSPX places of worship I know. Sure, there is a lesser of two evils in American politics – which is certainly not the party that has enshrined the murder of the unborn till the moment of birth and gay “marriage” as core party platforms – but for the most part traditionalists favor distributism and see the modern Western crony capitalist/oligarchy for what it is. In addition, the evils of central banking and fractional-reserve lending are well-known in such circles.
—–
It would only take perusing a few issues of The Remnant or CFN to discover this.
—–
It is the “conservative” neo-Catholics that, in general, grovel at the feet of el Rushbo. Not that everything he says is wrong, of course.
—–
Now that we’re talking about politics as well as religion here, the friendly ambiance should increase markedly.
Ever heard of Tom Woods? He wrote a book with Christopher Ferrara called the Great Facade which was a traditionalist screed against “NewChurch”. He is also a fierce defender of capitalism and the taking of interest on a loan.
Inflation is built-in to any fractional-reserve system (as is its benefit to those with first access to money in the system), so usury is not what it once was. In such systems a rate of interest matching inflation is not usury.
—–
Obviously there is a lot more to it than that. The books of Brian McCall have a very good reputation; unfortunately they keep getting pushed to the bottom of my reading stack.
Yes – that is where he & Mr. Ferrara famously parted company, and Mr. Woods exited the Traditionalist community.
—–
(One of Mr. Woods more *interesting* defenses of modern “capitalism” is his praise of the wonderful food that McDonald’s Corp. provides the masses.)
Usury was always defined by the Church as the taking of ANY interest on a loan. This prohibition against interest was reversed, as the article above states, by Pope Pius VIII in 1830.
This is a practical matter The object of such teaching is not the Deposit of Faith nor anything directly connected to it.
—–
As noted below, what constitutes usury depends upon the economic system in question. Fractional-reserve banking did not exist before the 18th century.
Interesting. So you acknowledge the Church taught at one time that the taking of any interest on a loan was immoral. Then, in your mind, circumstances changed(fractional-reserve) and the Church was able to the reverse herself on the teaching. So Church teaching can be contingent on changing circumstances. That is good to know.
Oh, by the way, “The Great Facade” is far from screed – have you read it? All or even most of it?
—–
(FYI, Mr. Ferrara has posted here proclaiming himself a fan of Louie’s blog.)
I read the whole thing back in my trad days. Of course, I didn’t see it a screed then. Good to know that Chris Ferrara posts here. He is one of the traditionalist writers that I admire.
As usual, you completely missed the point.
—–
First, circumstances did not change only “in my mind”, but in reality – do you intend to deny that fractional-reserve banking does not cause monetary inflation or that fractional-reserve banking is not now in existence?
—–
Again, since inflation is built-in to fractional-reserve banking, a positive rate of interest in such a system is not usury as condemned by the popes. Do you understand that? In systems before this time, such interest was profit; afterwards, a 0% rate of interest results in *loss*. Do you intend to assert that the popes believed that money lenders should lose money on every loan until they are bankrupt?
—–
You seem to be suggesting – if I can be allowed just a bit of inference here – that since the teaching on usury “changed”, the teaching on whether or not God grants the objective right not to be prevented from false public worship – or, equivalently, the right TO false public worship – could also change.
—–
So, my question for you: Do YOU believe that Catholic dogma or doctrine* can change? The follow-up would be, do you believe truth itself can change?
—–
Surely you must acknowledge that the concept of interest on a loan is directly dependent upon external qualifications, such as the economic system in use?
—–
And that whether or not an objective right to error exists is not?
—–
Now, we all agree that there are practical considerations regarding religious liberty: that is why the teaching always allowed states to fail to curtail false public worship if greater harm would result from that rather than allowing it. But, the underlying truth of whether or not there is an objective right to such did not and cannot change. Yet, DH seems to, and you definitely do, insist that this did change.
Though the lively discussion here regarding the history of the teaching on usury is quite interesting, I invite those who would like to discuss other equally interesting aspects of this document – such as the exact meaning of sensus fidei as proposed by the text – to join us in the forum: https://akacatholic.com/topic/itc-sensus-fidei-in-the-life-of-the-church/#post-4325
By the way, fractional reserve banking far predated(http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking) the following teaching from Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Vix Pervenit:
–
I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.
II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made.
Ganganelli,
Ex Trad that’s rich!
It seems you still are not following a very basic *fact* here – if the interest rate on a loan matches the rate of inflation there is no gain whatsoever.
—–
Do you believe that Church teaching on faith or morals can change? Do you believe that Truth can change? Do you want it to?
You admire him despite the fact that he writes “screed”? Have you perused the definition of that word lately?
And yet one more: You are familiar enough with Mr. Ferrara’s writings to admire him yet still under the impression that American traditionalists, in general, are died-in-the-wool Republicans? If you read the publications he writes for you would see that is not at all the case.
—–
Heck, if you really read the blog you’re commenting on you’d see that’s not the case: In his last post Louie dismantled Americanism.
Besides the *fact* that interest never matches the inflation rate, I will point out that nowhere does Pope Benedict XIV or any of his predecessors maintain that interest on a loan is acceptable when there is inflation nor is it acceptable to give back less when there is deflation. As the Pope teaches, “if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice”.
–
Yes, clearly Church teaching on morals can change. The issue of usury puts that issue to bed as Pope Benedict XIV declared the taking of interest to be a SIN. You don’t confess the interest you’re earning from your savings account, do you?
–
Now Truth can never change. What we THINK to be Truth can change. It is a mission of the Church to tell us what is true.
–
Do I want it too? Not applicable as I just said that I believe Truth can never change.
I have to say it seems you are being intentionally difficult in refusing to recognize the fact that fractional-reserve makes to this question: It did not exist then the prior statements regarding usury were written. You’ve also ignored several direct questions on that score. But then, ignoring this helps your case. The Church’s teaching on usury didn’t really change – the language did, because the underlying economic system did.
—–
Now, actually, Catholic moral teaching *can* change, as long as the teaching we’re talking about was not dogma or doctrine, which are infallible and immutable, and can “change” only by becoming more precise.
—–
The fact that there is exists no objective (God-given, as all true rights are) right to publicly practice false worship is an infallible teaching. It cannot change. The fact that DH seems – though all post-conciliar popes have declined to clarify this – to teaching something that contradicts that is not an insurmountable problem, since, once again, the promulgating pope himself told us that the council intended to bind the faithful to *no new teaching*.
—–
Again, some people want to believe this novel new teaching anyway, either to comfort themselves in keeping Church authority as simple as possible, because it makes getting with the world easier, or for some other reason (I can’t judge internals). But it is still a contradiction of actual, defined, binding Catholic teaching to do so.
@Ganganelli:
——–
Is this the point are you trying to make?
——–
That the Church has deviated from infallible teaching on one matter – usury – and, as a result, other doctrines thought to be irreformable may be changed.
——–
Besides usury, what other purportedly irreformable doctrines has the Church deviated from, where the deviation dates from a time prior to Vatican II?
It seems even the folks at Catholic Answers are aware that Church teaching on usury didn’t *really* change:
—–
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=561586
Oh Geez. I just pointed out to you that Vix Pervenit was written well after the introduction of Fractional-Reserve banking. Hello?
Same with CatholicCulture.org:
—
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
Gangenelli,
—–
You have now stated that you believe that Church teaching on faith & morals can “change” in the sense of directly contradicting previous teaching. If that is the case, *none* of the Church’s teachings are worth a thing – they could change to say the opposite tomorrow, as you assert is the case regarding usury.
—–
Luckily, that is not the case – as the Church teaches, doctrine can grow more specific, but can never contradict previous teaching – as long as we’re talking about dogma and doctrine, which are infallible.
Quoting “Abu”:
—–
“Did the Catholic Church change its teaching on usury?
—–
No.
—–
Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the decrees of councils and popes condemn the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers, but say nothing about the charging of interest in general.”
—–
This is what I’ve been saying – interest is not necessarily usury. For example, in an environment of 3% annual inflation a one-year loan with a rate of interest of 3% is NOT USURIOUS IN THE WAY THE POPES DEFINED IT.
Do you just read the posts that you agree with. There are many on that thread that openly admit the teaching changed.
Sorry…but going from ALL taking of interest on a loan is a sin to some taking of interest on a loan is not a sin is a contradiction. But does it bother me? Not in the least because I believe the Holy Ghost protects His Church and that the Church will always lead us into a greater understanding of His Truth.
The teaching on slavery is another one. Some say that teaching changed in 1890 while others say that it changed in 1965 so I can’t say for sure if it meets your criteria of being before V2.
By the way, I know I’ve said this before but it bears repeating. It is remarkable to me that we’ve never had a Cardinal Mahony or a Cardinal Burke elected to the papacy in the last 50 years since the close of V2. No extreme liberal or extreme traditionalist. In fact, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between any of Pius XII’s successors. I guess some would chalk that up to luck. I believe it is manifest proof of the miraculous nature of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Really good read – non-Traditionalist source:
—–
http://distributistreview.com/mag/2012/01/is-usury-still-a-sin/
—–
“The Church has not changed her teaching on usury and one can make a reasonable argument for the validity of the intrinsic injustice of usury itself.”
I need to correct myself: the Church’s teaching on usury IS a moral teaching and logically connected to the Deposit of Faith (it is doctrine). However, it hasn’t changed. This is probably the most accessible explanation I’ve come across this evening:
—–
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
@Ganganelli: So according to you, there are only two doctrines that have changed. More questions.
——-
(1) Which document do you point to as contradicting the prior teaching on usury?
(2) Which document or documents do you point to as setting forth the original church teaching on slavery, and which documents do you point to as setting forth the new teaching on slavery?
(3) Was the original church teaching on slavery ever thought to be irrefomable?
I missed that and you have a point. You’re right; by 1745 FR banking was widespread.
—–
However, this doesn’t change the fact that the Church’s teaching hasn’t changed. See the Catholic Culture article for the definition of usury as the popes used it.
Ganganelli wrote at 8:02 pm: “Usury was always defined by the Church as the taking of ANY interest on a loan. This prohibition against interest was reversed, as the article above states, by Pope Pius VIII in 1830.”
__
Excuse me for yawning every time you utter the phrase “always defined by the Church.” People now consider excessive interest as usury but OK fine, let us call “usury” the taking of ANY interest. So this is just semantics and we have to update our word choices. But as Catholic Thinker responded, this is a practical matter and it can be changed. One proof of this is Matthew 25:27 where Jesus Christ says in the parable of the talents:
__
“Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury (interest).”
__
Money has a time value and Jesus Christ made use of this fact to illustrate a point. How much value and how to insure this is not abused is a prudential matter.
__
You should have brought up geocentrism versus heliocentrism. It would have made for a more fruitful debate.
From the present document:
97. A further disposition necessary for authentic participation in the sensus fidei is attentiveness to the magisterium of the Church, and a willingness to listen to the teaching of the pastors of the Church, as an act of freedom and deeply held conviction.[115] The magisterium is rooted in the mission of Jesus, and especially in his own teaching authority (cf. Mt 7:29). It is intrinsically related both to Scripture and Tradition; none of these three can ‘stand without the others’.[116]
98. The subjects of the sensus fidei are members of the Church who heed the words of Jesus to the envoys he sends: ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me’ (Lk 10:16).
There is a huge difference between the Magisterium and the Hierarchy. One deals with truth and the other with people who teach it or not. I feel we are being directed to get in line with the parade that began marching with Pope Saint John XXIII,. It reminds me a bit from a scene from “A Man for All Seasons”:
MORE I don’t know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man’s conscience. I condemn no one.
CRANMER Then the matter is capable of question?
MORE Certainly.
CRANMER But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty and sign.
As pointed out by Catholic Culture, it’s liberals [who deny absolute truth], Protestants, and other anti-Catholics who argue that the Church has changed a moral teaching here. Yes, these folks exists on CA. And, yes, I linked to the thread for the good content.
A quick synopsis of excerpts, with some comments, from the Catholic Culture article:
—–
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
—–
“*** First, let’s be clear about what usury is not. It is not, as many people think, exorbitant interest on a loan. All parties in this discussion are agreed that the rate of interest has nothing to do with whether a loan is usurious.***”
—–
“So in the Old Testament we have specific prohibitions against Israelites taking interest on loans to other, poor Israelites, or more generally to any Israelites, but this prohibition does not constitute an absolute prohibition against all interest-taking; in fact, we have explicit testimony that interest is not completely forbidden.”
—–
“Situated here, in the Sermon on the Mount, this passage is clearly an appeal for Christian generosity; but it says nothing of the intrinsic morality of interest-taking. In fact, in the Parable of the Talents, our Lord chides the lazy servant who failed to receive any return on his master’s money: “You ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest” (Matt 25:27; cf. Luke 19:23). ***The Lord Jesus himself is the “master” in this parable, and it is impossible that he would place in his own mouth an injunction for his servant to do something intrinsically immoral***. So here, as in the Old Testament, the New Testament urges generosity and freedom in lending, especially to the poor, but fails to support the blanket condemnation of all interest…”
—–
“As the Jesuit Thomas F. Divine says, “In the writings of the early Fathers, we find only reiterations of the scriptural precepts that it is contrary to charity and mercy to exact usury of the poor, without any intimation that these precepts imply a universal prohibition” (Divine, 26).”
—–
“The vehement denunciations of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were called forth by the moral decadence and avarice of the time, and we cannot find in them any expression of a general doctrine on this point; nor do the Fathers of the following centuries say anything remarkable on usury; they simply protest against the exploitation of misfortune and against transactions that, under the pretence of rendering service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress.”
—–
“It is a bit hard for us to understand, but, during the greater portion of antiquity, economies were characterized by a lack of competitive markets and thus few opportunities for investment. Money itself was considered primarily a medium of private and not commercial exchange. As Joseph Rickaby says of the Middle Ages (and his comments apply to much of antiquity as well): “In those days land was hard to buy, agriculture backward, roads bad, seas unnavigable, carrying-trade precarious, messages slow, raids and marauders frequent, population sparse, commerce confined to a few centers, mines unworked, manufactures mostly domestic, capital as yet unformed. Men kept their money in their cellars or deposited it for safety in religious houses. . .-They took out coin as they wanted it to spend on housekeeping, or on war, or on feasting. It was very hard, next to impossible, to lay out money so as to make more money by it. Money was in those days really barren” (Moral Philosophy, 261)…
—–
During the Scholastic period of the Middle Ages, many issues, including the question of the morality of interest-taking, were subjected to more detailed analysis. On what specific principles is interest-taking moral or immoral? This was at the heart of the question of usury. Eventually the morality of interest-taking came to be understood as intrinsically bound up in the nature of the thing lent and the impact (or lack thereof) on the person lending it. ***It is immoral to take interest on the loan of a thing that is completely consumed by its use, for which one has no other use, and for which one incurs no loss by lending it.***”
—–
“As these ethical and economic principles became fully appreciated, and as civilization progressed, it became clear that money in more modern economies—with competitive markets and almost unlimited opportunities for profitable (“fruitful”) investment—did not suffer from the same tendency to be “unfruitful” as it had before. In the face of this change, the Church defined what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense OR ANY RISK.” (Emphasis mine.)
—–
Now, we get to the crux of the matter: Is there inherent risk in lending money in modern economies? Of course there is. Due compensation for such risk is NOT USURY as condemned by the Church.
—–
Conclusions: “Money is no longer a barren thing in itself, and thus the loan of money at interest is not usurious… ***Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time. A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself. But this is not a change of the Church’s teaching on usury***. Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury. This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury. “Still she maintains dogmatically that there is such a sin as usury, and what it is, as defined in the Fifth Council of Lateran “(ibid., 263).”
LOL. This contradicts the previous article you posted. Which one do you believe?
So, as I said, the sin that the Church (infallibly – I was wrong about that initially and should have not spoken before checking; this is an infallible moral teaching) condemned as usury is still a sin. That teaching has not changed and will never change. What *has* changed is that loan contracts that were usurious in one time and economy are usually not today, because factors such as inflation, risk, and the fungibility of money have changed. (I attributed this to the introduction of fractional-reserve banking, but there are other factors.)
—–
To assert that Catholic moral teaching on usury has, in fact, changed, puts one outside of not only traditional Catholic thinking but, it would seem, all mainstream Catholic thinking.
I posted one other article:
—–
http://distributistreview.com/mag/2012/01/is-usury-still-a-sin/
—–
The summarization at the top of this article is: “The Church has not changed her teaching on usury and one can make a reasonable argument for the validity of the intrinsic injustice of usury itself”; this is quite obviously fully congruent with the CC article.
—–
The question being debated is whether or not the Church has changed its teaching on usury, as you assert. Both articles demonstrate that this is not the case. It is true that they are not written from quite the same perspective and differ in thought regarding *economic* questions. Is this the source of your amusement?
Now let’s see if I can do the same thing but with the words of a left wing dissenter.
–
So, as I said, the sin that the Church (infallibly – I was wrong about that initially and should have not spoken before checking; this is an infallible moral teaching) condemned as divorce and remarriage is still a sin. That teaching has not changed and will never change. What *has* changed is that what we considered to be valid marriages in the past are not now because factors such as poor catechesis, immaturity of couples, and the lack of understanding of what constitutes true marriage.
—–
To assert that Catholic moral teaching on divorce and remarriage has, in fact, changed, puts one outside of not only traditional Catholic thinking but, it would seem, all mainstream Catholic thinking.
As the saint says, some popes are a gift and some a curse. Another told us that bad prelates are a punishment from God.
—–
As I’ve said before, your conclusion is not at all logical. Your assertion is that because we’ve had a number of popes in a row with modernist leanings that they are all excellent pontiffs doing exactly what God wants is more or less a circular argument. They are similar because they had the same mentors and are followers of the same or similar philosophy (integral humanism; etc.)
—–
You might as well say that the great proliferation of Italian pontiffs is proof that those people are more beloved by God.
Rather nonsensical, I’m afraid. You believe that the Church contradicted an infallibly-defined moral teaching yet you are confident in the Spirit’s protection?
—–
If you were familiar with the issue you would understand that the rate of interest has nothing to do with usury: even the most widely-cited proponent of the view that the Church changed her teaching states that.
By the way, the above is not just a hypothetical. It is actually my prediction for the Synod. And people like ACT will have given them the ammunition.
You would have a point if the question concerned totally or even primarily what marriages are actually valid – but that isn’t the case, as you’d understand if you read Kasper’s document. So, I call this sophism, pure & simple.
—–
(The analogy is also rather pure given that the economic system a loan contract is created in is actually a *part* of the contract, but there are no external factors in marriage that can govern its validity. Sure, there are factors that could make invalid marriages more likely, but that’s not the same thing. Kasper is not saying “let’s work harder to identify invalid marriages”.)
—–
Gangenelli, you’ve been proven conclusively wrong once again: the Church did not change her teaching on usury, and to assert that She did leads immediately to a complete collapse of Catholic authority since it is an infallible teaching. I am really beginning to think you will say anything to defend any newchurch novelty or aberration.
—–
Goodnight.
No. My point was valid all along. I laid the bread crumbs and you followed them just like I expected you too. The clue was right in Louie’s original article. The document states the following:
–
i) Between canon 20 of the Council of Elvira (c. 306 AD), which forbade clerics and lay people to receive interest, and the response, Non esse inquietandos, of Pope Pius VIII to the bishop of Rennes (1830), there is a clear development of teaching, due to both the emergence of a new awareness among lay people involved in business as well as new reflection on the part of theologians with regard to the nature of money.
–
Gee, what does that sound like?
For others who may be reading this I would like to stress that the little “trick” I played on ACT wasn’t done with a nefarious intent.
–
The Church will never come right out and say, “Oops we were wrong on a matter of faith or morals like usury or divorce and remarriage.” There will always be a way of explaining things such that the new teaching will be made harmonious with the old. If things can’t be made harmonious, it will be explained that changing circumstances necessitated a modification in the teaching.
–
I’m OK with all of this because I believe the Holy Ghost protects His Church. But, come 2015, remember this post when the Synod announces it’s decisions.
To all: (see also Matthew’s Forum in All Things Catholic on Sensus Fideilium)
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Amen to your statement “Of course, turning to the sensus fidelium has long been a tactic of liberals trying to undermine the Church’s moral teaching, simply ignoring the fact that there is no valid sensus that contradicts truth.”
When Louie first mentioned it, we shuddered thinking how it could be misused, and then realized how cleverly they’ve been appealing to the rebellious masses to come back into the Church, with the unspoken promise that all their hangups are soon to be erased.
—-
What a way to stack the deck and shrink the influence of the True Faithful-with unreformed atheists; divorced, non-annulled re-marrieds; pride-full ,sexually active (unjudged) homosexuals, unrepented, wounded-by-truth deserters, and protestants who see their sects now appear the same as the post VII Church under Pope Francis-and think their heresies are now approved.
—-
But here is the description of what Sensi Fidei actually said was required :
BURIED IN PARAGRAPH 89:
The first and most fundamental disposition is active participation in the life of the Church:
— Formal membership of the Church is not enough.
— Participation in the life of the Church means constant prayer (cf. 1Thess 5:17),
–active participation in the liturgy, especially the Eucharist,
–regular reception of the sacrament of reconciliation,
— discernment and exercise of gifts and charisms received from the Holy Spirit, and active engagement in the Church’s mission and in her diakonia.
—
It presumes
— an acceptance of the Church’s teaching on matters of faith and morals
— a willingness to follow the commands of God, and
— courage both to correct one’s brothers and sisters, and also to accept correction oneself.
—
NOW CONTRAST THAT WITH HOW THEY ENDED THE DOCUMENT:
PARAGRAPH 127:
Vatican II was a new Pentecost, equipping the Church for the new evangelisation that popes since the council have called for. The council gave a renewed emphasis to the traditional idea that
—all of the baptised have a sensus fidei, and
— the sensus fidei constitutes a most important resource for the new evangelisation.
We don’t know about you all, but what we were instantly reminded of a headline we read a while back which said:
—
DEMOCRATS CAUGHT RED-HADED (AGAIN)
REGISTERING DEAD PEOPLE TO VOTE
—–
I almost never post…I am a novus ordo reader.
Ban ganganelli…wanting to win arguments is not the same as loving the truth.
Something I learned to discern in the sorry excuse for a seminary I attended.
Trust me Louie…note his IP and vanish him.He IS the violator of the spirit of the blog you referred to in your previous post on off topic tangents and abuse.
PS. The SSPX is right.
On a positive note today my pastor actually prayed to The Sacred Heart of Jesus today.An answer to prayer!
Our Lady of Fatima…pray for us!
Another clear Catcholic analysis of the counter-church, and of the pernicious verbosity of its false prophets. What gets me is that ‘the faithful’, as defined by VII, includes protestants, Jews and Muslims and probably, by now, atheists. Remember that VII actually redifined the Mystical Body? Unfortunately all this is far from pointless from the agenda of the synagogue of satan AKA the occupiers in Rome. Its meant to destroy not only the faithful but any clear hope of understanding the Faith or recognising Church.
Happily with prayer, a good Catholic Bible and a non-masonic missal, and also decent access to the wealth of True Catholic resources on the net, recognising the Faith and keeping one’s Faith actually faithful to the Faith rather than the fakers in the fatican, is doable.
“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.” Vatican Council I
___
The revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.
___
This is the Sensus Fiidelium.
Sorry, that’s Fidelium.
__
But once more for good measure:
__
“The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.” St. Vincent Lerins http://foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com/2013/05/st-vincent-of-lerins-on-development-of.html
__
Any novelty of thought or deed along these lines, by layman, theologian, or even Pope, I am definitely not “OK with.”
Off topic… sorry Mr. V but…. but….prayers are needed.
Over at RC, Catholicism trying to gain a foothold in Gotham.
_____
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-win-win-situation-for-holy-innocents.html
____
St. Michael Archangel, ora pro nobis
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.
“In certain areas, the teaching of the Church has developed as a result of lay people discovering the imperatives arising from new situations.”
This is just a con, a setup for an attempt to destroy Catholic marriage.
dear FrankIII,
Precisely. It’s a con game. It’s not Catholicity.
Archbishop Lefebvre- humble missionary servant, fortitudinous and willing victim of calumny, yet protector of the Faith undefiled, ora pro nobis.
apologize, dear brethren,
off-topic–
a little controversy, anyone?
http://www.voiceofcatholicradio.com/catholicradiowebpage_002.htm
can also be linked to– via Louie’s sidebar
‘ALL taking of interest on a loan is a sin to some taking of interest on a loan is not a sin is a contradiction.’
–
If you take a loan out in 2010 and you still have that loan by 2025, there will be an interest which is related to inflation. Which means it is justifiable to repay that interest as it will keep the loan at the same value as it was back in 2010, and not to exploit the individual who granted the loan by paying less back to him (which would occur with inflation.) If on the other hand, you were to pay back a loan which had an interest which is related to inflation and also had an interest which was not related to inflation, the one not related to inflation is unjustifiable.
Speaking of John Courtenay Murray – today is the 45th anniversary of the death, R.IP., of Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton ‘best remembered for his aggressive opposition to John Courtney Murray, S.J., on religious freedom and on the relationship between Church and State.’
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Clifford_Fenton
de Maria, guess it’s too bad people are people and not bees – remarkable stories of Fr. beecharmer.
–
As for most people’s prefence for pope, in his latest interview he expresses a leaning towards collegiality (another VII heresy): ‘ In regard to the plan, instead, I follow what the Cardinals have requested during the General Congregations before the Conclave. I go in that direction. The Council of Eight Cardinals, an external body, was born from that. It was requested to help reform the Curia. Something, moreover, that isn’t easy because a step is taken, but then it emerges that this or that must be done, and if before there was one dicastery, it then becomes four.My decisions are the fruit of the pre Conclave meetings. I haven’t done anything on my own…’
–
http://meetingthemets.com/2014/07/06/jorge-just-wont-go-away/
–
P.s. the link is to Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey site, so if anyone truly believes that all the problems in the Church and the world in Its care are because of sedevacantists and not anti-popes or false popes and their equally anti-church cardinals and other lackeys doing satan’s busy-bee work – be warned – Dr Drolesky uses plain talk.
–
p.s. apparently Dr Drolesky’s site has been hacked repeatedly of late – even cyberspacies don’t like sedevacantists.
my dear Salvemur,
heh-heh, people are not bees–
although one could imagine a someone grabbing a certain busy body, {ooops, I mean busy bee} & that certain someone placing the busy bee in their pocket as described, then simply disposing {charitably, no doubt} of that certain chattering busy body, {oops, I mean busy bee,–of course.}
salvemur–brethren,
Pontiff finally addresses the paramount sin of the day-failure to adore Goddess Mother Nature:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/05/pope-francis-nature-environment-sin-_n_5559631.html?page_version=legacy
Groovy man. We can all sing this:
–
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=41ApPLvJsIE
–
while we get even more groovy with tutus worldwide forgiveness day – that’s right folks it’s Global forgiveness day. Yep dezzie tutu that lgbt pro-abortion lama-lovin’ bloke – actually he may be a likely candidate for the next ‘pope’. after all anglicans are brother bishops – it’s really not fair having confirmed Roman Catholics as the only nominees for that prize.
Cistercian is correct. Ganganelli is a troll (a very clever one) and deserves to be banned. His goal seems to be sow seeds of confusion. He makes a controversial statement and then is ready with an argumentative follow-up.
—
PLEASE — DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!
The best advice I have for the rest of you is to ignore Ganganelli. Arguing with him is exactly what he wants.
—
P.S. Ganganelli’s name is an obvious reference to Pope Clement XIV who was a sort of proto-Bergoglio with regards to his favorable treatment of the Jewish people and who in 1773 infamously suppressed the Jesuits at the behest of the secular forces in the world; whose very election in the conclave of 1769 was infamously manipulated by the very same secular forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Clement_XIV
That’s a bit extreme, it’s not adoring Nature as a goddess, it’s simply reaffirming Traditional teaching on Man’s obligation to Stewardship.
Which even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI addressed.
You must have missed the recent – but then there’s always a recent – bergoglio bash about sins against nature being the ‘unforgivable’ sin and he was talking about trees and soil, not sodomy or simony. he also went on to explain that human beings are higher than angels – Mundabor took the ‘Angel of God my guardian dear…’ prayer and showed how silly this was. especially given that the bible plainly states that ‘men are a little lower’ than the angels. not every commenter is lacking charity – mostly just fed up and happy for a wee giggle where it is definitely warranted.
dear cistercian and Michael Leon,
Agreed. Don’t feed ’til banned.
“The master’s response was swift and harsh: “You wicked and indolent slave! You were aware that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered; you ought for that reason to have invested my money with the bankers; then, on my return, I should have received my own with interest.”
Matthew25: 26-27
http://www.lewissociety.org/parable.php
Agreeing with poster John314 from post #24 below:
“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.” Vatican Council I
___
The revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.
___
This is the Sensus Fiidelium.
Sorry, that’s Fidelium.
___
“The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.” St. Vincent Lerins http://foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com/2013/05/st-vincent-of-lerins-on-development-of.html
__
Any novelty of thought or deed along these lines, by layman, theologian, or even Pope, I am definitely not “OK with.
This post reminds me of Bergoglio’s homily on
the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. After stating that this title of Our Lady “refers to a quality, a role which the faith of the Christian people…has understood from the beginning” (all emphases herein added), Bergoglio describes the relevant proclamation at the Council of Ephesus in the following terms:
“It is said that the residents of Ephesus used to gather at the gates of the basilica where the bishops were meeting and shout, ‘Mother of God!’. The faithful, by asking them to officially define this title of Our Lady, showed that they acknowledged her divine motherhood. Theirs was the spontaneous and sincere reaction of children who know their Mother well, for they love her with immense tenderness. But it is more: it is the sensus fidei of the holy People of God which, in its unity, never errs.”
The strong implication here is that this teaching was not a logical deduction of fact by the Council Fathers but rather the outcome of some spontaneous outpouring of profound religious feeling. (Pope St. Pius X condemns the proposition that “[i]t is for the ecclesiastical authority…to shape itself to democratic forms, unless it wishes to provoke and foment an intestine conflict in the consciences of mankind” – Pascendi, #23).
Compare Bergoglio’s account with the following brief note in the Catholic Encyclopedia (on “The Blessed Virgin Mary”):
“The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title ‘Mother of God’ was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word.”
In other words, it was precisely a bishop’s denial of true theology that needed to be denounced at the Council. There is a lesson there for the Synod.
“The Church will never come right out and say, “Oops we were wrong on a matter of faith or morals like usury or divorce and remarriage.” There will always be a way of explaining things such that the new teaching will be made harmonious with the old. If things can’t be made harmonious, it will be explained that changing circumstances necessitated a modification in the teaching.”
—–
Er, what? Do you, or do you not, believe that the Church has changed infallible moral teaching, as you so vociferously argued last night? Never mind – whatever your position today, it’s clear you have no understanding whatsoever of the nature of the Church. Your prose above speaks of a church that is a human institution, with no divine protection from error in the teaching of faith & morals whatsoever. That is not the Catholic Church.
—–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/infallibility/
—–
The actual Catholic Church does not need to search for “ways of explaining things such that the new teaching will be made harmonious with the old”, like a dishonest used car salesman.
—–
As for banning you, I say keep you around – you do an excellent job of demonstrating how naked is the emperor of neo-Catholicism. You are likely winning thousands of converts to tradition with your posting here.
—–
If you keep telling lies in posts, though, as your use of the word “trick” implies, I hope you confess such sins; that is what they are.
—–
The questions above are rhetorical – I won’t be devoting any more time to your comments here (this blog post, that is).
The problems in the Church were & are caused by bad popes and other prelates infected with modernism and under the spell of “diabolical disorientation”.
—–
Sedevacantism is an unworkable system; what modern sedevacantists teach was never taught by any theologian in the history of the Church. Notably, even Bellarmine, the sede go-to theologian, taught that though a pope who loses his office in the internal forum must still be formally deposed by the Church before he loses his public office:
—–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
—–
Can we have a truce on this topic, perhaps? We all want to talk mainly about the crisis in the Church here and we all have a lot in common on that score. I do not want to keep creating tangents to argue against sedevacantism but when I see talk of “anti-popes” and “false popes” I feel obliged to respond.
—–
So, how about it – a truce on this topic? Please?
dear A Catholic Thinker,
With utmost respect, “truce” implies a battle. I see no battle. But if you see discussion as battle, then this is why you feel so obliged perhaps. I enjoy the way you write, and as I’ve stated before, your genuine empathy for the brethren is remarkable. Maybe consider freeing yourself of this obligation. You’ve well stated your case. And I’m glad you have.
—
Anyway, most {laity,} who call themselves sedevacantists today are actually sedeprivationists. Practicing the Faith as it was unaffected by the {impending and actual,} catastrophe, pre circa 1955. That, and they simply ignore, and to greater or lesser degree, counsel others to ignore- for care of souls- Occupants of the Chair who have shown themselves to be non Catholic.
de Maria,
—–
Thank you, and I respect you as well, and I respect Salvemur.
—–
Actually, there is a battle in the world of Traditionalism with the sedevacantist position. There is a reason why members of the Society who held to it obstinately were expelled. The reason I debate against it is that it is simply false, thus leading souls astray on a topic of serious practical import. Furthermore, it is my direct experience and that of many others that it leads to and fosters pervasive subjective judgement (of the pope and everyone else) – but de internis ecclesia non judica – the Church does not judge internals – and neither are we to.
—–
(Note that I am *not* saying that it is false to say that Pope Francis is not a real pope. What I am saying is false is the sede position: that we can know with moral certainty he is not the pope and that he has lost his public office despite the lack of any action on the part of the Church.)
—–
I do not agree that most so-called sedevacantists are sedeprivationists today. I’m speaking about novusordowatch, the Dimonds, etc. They demand that every Catholic refuse to recognize the pope as such and condemn those who do as heretics. These are the folks that have the followers; if they are sedevacantists – they are and they self-identify as such – it would stand to reason their followers are too. But, heck, there could be more sedeprivationists out there than I know about.
—–
But, neither position has any *real* support among the theologians – none of them, including Bellarmine. This is something, again, virtually unknown among sedevacantists. Even Bellarmine taught that a heretic pope retains his public office unless and until deposed by the cardinals. He taught this in black & white. This exact question was considered.
—–
Do be aware that we non-sede Traditionalists are quite open to the possibility that a future pope will condemn one or more of the post-conciliar modern popes – that is quite possible! I am tempted to call it likely. But for us, now, Francis is the pope. That is that. And if anything else were true the Church would have descended into complete anarchy long, long ago. Of course, this was the Archbishop’s reasoned position. He had a doctorate in theology.
—–
(Sedevacantism often strikes me as primarily an emotional reaction. I say this in part because so much sede writing is so filled with emotion of all kinds. The man who says “You are not pope!” reminds me of the man who hates his father and tells him “You are not my father!”)
—–
It seems you’ve made a plea for something on my part with a tone of objectivity, yet, unless I am mistaken, your post also suggests you are in the other camp. I may be mistaken on that, of course. 🙂
—–
Please read the article I referenced above. This one article by Siscoe does more to dismantle the sede position than any other I’ve seen. (Yes, I’ve seen the “rebuttals” to it, and find them laughable – full of the snarling invective and sarcasm that fills the world of sede writers.)
—–
I’m taking a break from blog commenting this evening so if I’m to be beaten up by the sedes tonight, that’s that.
—–
The point of my post was just that I think that sedevacantism would be better discussed in forum threads than blog comments.
—–
God bless you.
Louie, this is such an utterly good exposition of the topic…excellent teaching; I’ll be reading this a few times over, saving it, and referencing it often. You’ve been given a charism of teaching for such a time as this. Thank you!!!
dear A Catholic Thinker,
God bless you too.
With regard to your last sentence–of course, this is what Louie requested and you are right in wishing to abide by his request.
If I may just say, to even suggest that novusordowatch, and the Dimonds are at all representative of those faithful who take the sede vacante /privation position is- to say the least-
an unjust characterization, objectively speaking. If anything , they demean by means of their sensationalist tactics and are dangerous, in my personal opinion.
–
That said, I too, feel obliged, as you’ve said you often are, to offer something authentic insofar as being a more normalized representation of said position:
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Index.html
–
Therein anyone can find the Faith as I {and anyone cognizant pre-VII, } knew it as a child —–whole.
Peace be to you and maybe see you and others in the forums.
regarding references to sedevacantist arguments and sources – as far as i can tell I’m the only one doing so. If Louie decided to issue as statement excluding all sedevacantist references on this site – there would be an end to it. The sedevacantists, however, look with unclouded eyes at the actualities of the Church and its state. Plus they have have some brlliantly erudite sites. I just read another of Dr. Drolosekey’s posts – this one on abortion-politics amongst Catholics and Protestants. It also includes a phrophetic article published in the Washington Post from 1932 which looks with open eyes at the utter hypocrisy at the time of Protestants wanting to have their Christian cake and eat it too. The article focuses on the absurdity of ” The Federal Council of Churches in America (appointing) a committee on “marriage and the home,” which has now submitted a report favoring a “careful and restrained” use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.”
–
The phrase ‘a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion (Christianity)’ – this – to me sums up my experience of novus ordo catholicism.
–
http://meetingthemets.com/2014/07/08/arguing-over-that-which-is-inarguable-2/
This is an interesting interchange. We hope you (de Maria, Salvemur and Catholic Thinker) won’t mind a small added observation, but it does illustrate a bit of a problem.
—
Louie requested side-topics go to Forum, but if folks make statements that other folks see as detrimental to future readers’ Faith or Faith formation, they don’t want them left, posted and unanswered, as a matter of principle and duty.
—–
It’s unlikely that many or most reading Louie’s blog post comments, will take the time to go to a Forum and pursue the discussion, when there are more posts to read on the original topic.
—–
So getting the “last word” inadvertently becomes a contest of endurance, and Louie’s request get’s left in the dust.
—–
Any suggestions?
This is what we mean in our comment (above #28) And we’re not pointing to anyone in particular, as we stated above.
Louie said, “I don’t want to police the comments here for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I think having a space for a free exchange among those who love the Catholic faith, wherein each person is accountable for whatever he or she happens to say, is of great value.
— (We take that to mean that no particular point of view is to be made totally taboo) Louie went on to say:
—
I realize that comments relative to a given blog post will often spark other equally important conversations unrelated to the topic of the post. That, my friends, is why I went to the trouble and expense (and not a little of each) of creating the Forum. So, from this point forward here’s how we’re going to proceed.
—If, in the comment area, you feel moved to initiate a new, even if somewhat related, topic (and let’s be honest, the commenters here are plenty intelligent enough to know what that means) take it to the Forum and invite those who are interested to join you there.
—-I’m going to need your help making a go of this. I’m not inclined to create moderators, but I would ask that you please kindly call each other to account when necessary.
Here’s why I think this is important:
In any given month, there are nearly 20,000 unique visitors to this blog, with only a small fraction commenting.
Based on private emails I receive from time to time, I can tell you that some of these visitors are slowly discovering that their inheritance was stolen (and some of them are priests and religious.) I suspect that a decent number of these folks have questions to ask, or even challenges to level to the points being raised, and yet they dare not comment for fear of being shot on sight based on the civil war that often breaks out in the combox on unrelated topics.
These in-family squabbles can be expected to happen; they’re a sign that we’re not lukewarm and they can even bring about some good, but I don’t want them in the comment section on topics unrelated to the post.
If we can’t make this “light moderation” approach work, this site will end up being nothing more than a place for the choir to rant, which isn’t worth the effort. In the end, we might find that this simply isn’t feasible, but I still happen to believe it can work if you’re willing. We’ll see.
Thanks in advance for making it happen. I appreciate all of you.
dear Indignus famulus,
This is in response to you above addressed to ACT, .me and salvemur. Please forgive because I don’t know how to get this right next to you as a reply so I hope you see this.
—
Re: Louie’s request getting left in the dust–I totally agree with what you said and I am sorry for my contribution to same.
–
My initial response to ACT was not to address topically, per se, but -to your point-
precisely because I saw one commenter telling another commenter to “put a lid on it,” { as new york city natives say,} as a turn – off. My thought was if someone new thought it was OK for one commenter to give a “warning” to another here, they will definitely feel unwelcome & afraid to get their knees crushed .
–
That said, It’s also more likely though, that only I saw ACt’s admonishion as a warning
–
I agree with you, too, vis a vie “last word.” I will try to offer this temptation up.
–
Finally, re: suggestions–perhaps we commenters might the copy and paste. I think it’s a good idea. We’re all adults, and if someone ignites our {wholesome and Catholic} curiosity and interest, we can all make a search. This way, sharing becomes graced with brevity.
–
Just my response, for whatever it’s worth.
Thank you so much.
dear Indignus famulus,,
What I meant t say was:
“perhaps we commenters might AVOID the copy and paste.—–”
sorry.
The only way I see this working is if everyone agrees that the blog and the forum are two different animals requiring two different sets of behavior in regards to posting.
–
The blog is the front page visited by thousands, and those of us who frequently comment need to tone things down. I’d propose that comments made here should be exclusively directed to Louie as the author, i.e. not to others who comment here. That will cut out a huge part of the problem right there.
–
The forum, on the other hand, should be the place where people feel free to engage other participants in discourse, and where discussions can take on that winding course of growth to which such things are inherently prone.
*Reposted from above* (no. 27)
The only way I see this working is if everyone agrees that the blog and the forum are two different animals requiring two different sets of behavior in regards to posting.
–
The blog is the front page visited by thousands, and those of us who frequently comment need to tone things down. I’d propose that comments made here should be exclusively directed to Louie as the author, i.e. not to others who comment here. That will cut out a huge part of the problem right there.
–
The forum, on the other hand, should be the place where people feel free to engage other participants in discourse, and where discussions can take on that winding course of growth to which such things are inherently prone.
dear Indignus famulus,,
Re: suggestions
If you’ll allow me to add-
here & on the forums, consider avoiding political references. Assumptions, condemnations, etc. I’ve seen them by you and numerous others here in the past, and that is damaging, in my opinion. To contribute to a stereotypical profile of a “Trad,” is unhelpful to say the least.
Dear de Maria and Matthew
Quite right. We have been full participants in what we suggest needs to be fixed, and in no way claim any innocence. Being relatively new here, we jumped right into the “chat-room” atmosphere we found on arriving.
Sadly, we’ll miss that, if we have to do what Matthew suggested just above, because the back and forth, when kept in short-check, even with political references which are part of everyone’s thinking, was very enjoyable, whereas the Forum is so chopped up-conversation wise because so few are in the same place at one time.
However, Matthew’s suggestion is more in line with what it appears Louie wants, and it’s his Blog, so his intentions should prevail.
We wonder if Louie could add a real “chat-room” for the current blog-topics.
Dear de Maria
If you would, could you give us a few examples of where you found us making assumptions or condemnations etc… just so we can check to see if what we are trying to avoid goes along with what you picked up? If you’d rather not get that specific, maybe point us to a post or forum that particularly demonstrates what you mean…it would help us avoid it in the future. Thanks again, and God Bless.
p.s. to de Maria
If you’re suggestion on avoiding the copy and paste was referring in particular to our reposting a good deal of what Louie said about this problem, –we deserved that. In our defense, we have seen short references made to it several times since it was posted, and even the persons making the reference then went on for numerous paragraphs, because of the perceived need to refute the other’s “false” words.
So our posting it was meant as more of a stop sign to those who go on for about 12 inches or more at a time, not to folks like you, who seem to have a knack for shorter, very meaningful insights. (as you can see, we don’t) 🙂
p.p.s.
In going over what you posted above, we noticed a reference to the Diamonds and Trads and Sede’s being misrepresented.
If that refers to anything we wrote, we assure you we were not in any way implying that any one of those groups represents any of the others.
When we started posting here, we had little if any information about the differences between all those labels, and just thought of ourselves as Catholics in misery for the last 50 years. Our attempts to sort it all out, have resulted in more confusion, as more and more people object to being lumped together with others, who make many but not all of the same assertions, while we see them accusing one another of being in danger of, or in schism.
—-We have to chalk that up to the ongoing mess at the top, and the struggle of each of us, to make sense of it. At this point, we hold no prejudices against any persons or groups who post here, and are letting God figure out if anyone is in schism, just praying for all.
dear Indignus famulus,
no, no, no–not talking about that. Sorry i caused you to feel you had to make a defense, I’m very sorry if you took it that way. Please forgive.. Quite honestly I was grateful for you re-focusing on Louie’s requests. So, thank you for it!
–
{BTW, can I tell my children that someone actually thinks I have a knack for anything short & meaningful?} {I don’t know how to make a smiley face w/keyboard}
–
Getting back, no, what I meant was, {not that my thought was valid, mind you,} that it’s great to ignite passion, chat, further investigation, etc,.–& maybe that could be done without cut & past resulting in a plethora of paragraph references which can be found by anyone by means of just having one’s curiosity {wholesome, as I said,} by generous & erudite brethren here.
Dear de Maria,
You can tell them yes, we think you have a knack, and are frequently delightful and entertaining, as well. though in our experience, they’ll likely think it’s just because we’re old fogies..
You make a smiley with the keyboard by SHIFT and do a colon:
followed by a dash – followed by a close parenthesis ). 🙂 it shows up after you submit.
Thank you for the clarifications, and we agree fully.
dear Indignus famulus,
to your p.p.s.-
no, it was not to anything you wrote.
–
Earlier it was mentioned , not by you, but by ACT to whom my response was addressed, the entities of novus ordo watch and “The Dimonds”-{ the correct spelling,} within a context which seemed to imply that those sensationalist entities are representative of faithful Catholics/legitimate clergy who hold the sede vacante or privation position. Hence, I linked {above,earlier,} to a place which more accurately represents the norm of those who hold same. I in no way want to assume malintent on the part of ACT, that is for sure. But I think A Catholic Thinker knows that.
–
Just my experience that many are misled on what is the basis for Catholics holding those positions. So I just thought it good to avoid those entities., since they fail to educate, can be dangerous, and make a plea via false emotionalism.{as ACT stated,} but he wrongly assumed all Catholics holding either of these positions are motivated/drawn by blind emotion.
–
Well. I hope I am getting all my chat out so I, too, can adhere to the new regime, to be quite honest.
dear Indignus famulus,
Well, If it’s OK-I’d rather not point it out {political references, assumptions, etc.} and this is why. Instead, I implore you to excuse me for making that comment.
–
I am aware of my own hyper-sensitivity to such bc I recently came out of homelessness which I’ve mentioned here before. I see everywhere, not only here, but references to policies etc. in a starkly biased light, some policies which are actually how I survived my situation.
–
I know you’ll understand it as well, when I say that the current Pontiff’s {seeming,} emphasis to the poor and there material needs taking precedence over authentic Catholic spiritual guidance, has affected me in a most horrible way. So, please forgive and know that I recognize my oversensitivity and it’s not really the fault of anyone who {I perceive,} to hold whatever political views may frighten me.
Thank you so much.
Dear de Maria,
Fully understandable and absolutely NO problem.
And we’re sorry for some of what you went through.
—
We say “some”, because looking back at our own very painful experiences -a lot of which we would also never wish to fully publicize- we do see the hand of God in them, guiding us through as part of what we needed to help us become who we are, today. We’re sure you must know what we mean by that. Not that we’re better than others, just that we now see and hear and understand more than we would had we not gone through those times. And when someone such as yourself refers to that sort of thing, we can relate immediately. God bless.