Thursday, December 16, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
JP2 Canonized? Hardly Playing Devil’s Advocate
The following article (minimally edited) was submitted last June to The New Oxford Review, in reply to an article which NOR deigned to print.
by Steven Speray
HuttonGibson.com
John Paul II mostly likely will be canonized by Benedict XVI. And why not? Tom Bethell’s article “Playing Devil’s Advocate” gives possible reasons why this canonization should perhaps be put on hold, but hardly plays devil’s advocate as to why this process should never take place. In the end, Bethell dismisses his entire advocate thesis with, “Obviously, John Paul was a man of personal holiness” and “should proceed without haste in formally discerning his sanctity.”
Bethell states, “only the Church can declare someone a saint,” but great Catholic saints were recognized by the faithful though never canonized by the Church. St. Patrick is a prime example!
John Paul II, like St. Patrick, is recognized by many as a saint. But is John Paul II really, like Patrick, a great Catholic leader filled with personal holiness?
To question John Paul’s personal holiness among Vatican 2 “Catholics” is like asking Muslims whether Mohammed was a true prophet. It cannot be done without greatly upsetting their devoted followers.
However, truth doesn’t man-please and truth is what matters.
What makes John Paul II a man of holiness or unholiness?
Like St. Patrick, John Paul II seemed a deeply prayerful man. But what price orthodoxy? Who canonizes heretics but subsequent heretics?
Was John Paul orthodox in his teaching? Did he knowingly believe and teach any kind of heresy by way of word or action that would be contrary to the faith, keeping men in or leading men into heresy and apostasy?
In Ireland, St. Patrick wasted no time condemning the Druid religion as Devil-worship. He went about the countryside declaring the Gospel while denouncing druid paganism. He welcomed no druids to pray to their gods for peace. He went not inside their pagan temples nor prayed with them, and he certainly never received as a bishop the blessings from leaders of this pagan religion. He actually broke their laws in public and prayed incessantly that his life be spared from death by the druid hand.
St. Patrick was concerned of the Druid spells and poisons precisely because he knew the evils of false religion with its black laws of heathenism, false laws of heresy, and the deceits of idolatry.
The result of Patrick’s witness to Christ in Ireland was the complete conversion of the entire country to Catholicism which, in turn, saved civilization as the Scriptures (as well as many other great works) were preserved by his monks.
How does this contrast with John Paul II?
In 1985, John Paul II prayed “with” African Animists known as “witch doctors.” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.)
On February 5, 1986, in the city of Chennai (Madras for the Zoroastrians) India, John Paul II, alongside Dr. Meher Master Moos, actively participated in a Zoroastrian ceremony by lighting a candle while wearing a pagan stole with the symbols of the pagan religion.
The following year, “During his visit to Phoenix in 1987, John Paul II received a ritual ‘blessing’ from the Pima Indian shaman Emmet White using an eagle’s feather. John Paul said that the act had ‘enriched the Church.’”
In 1986 and 2002, John Paul II invited all the world’s religious leaders to Assisi, Italy to pray and offer sacrifices to each his own god for world peace. Leaders from Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tenrikyo, Shintoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Voodoo attended with prayers, and even with animal sacrifices from the Voodooists, all in the name of peace.
John Paul II also promoted Islamic culture when he stated in his message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000: “Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture… I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture…” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5.)
This is a culture that blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity while misleading literally a billion people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Later, John Paul II, on March 21, 2000, prayed: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)
In his Feb. 4, 1993, address to the Voodoo representative of Benin at Cononou, John Paul II actually promoted the African religion of Voodooism implying that man may be saved in Voodoo.
Voodoo priests saw John Paul’s “Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Africa” as an endorsement of their religion. In a paper by N. Adu Kwabena-Essem entitled “Pope’s Apology to Africans,” the Voodooist said, “African religions had their biggest boost two years ago when Pope John Paul II, on a visit to Benin, apologized for centuries of ridiculing African cultural beliefs by the Western world. Benin is the home of Voodoo…The crucial question is whether the Pope’s ‘penance’ will force others to start respecting African cultures, in particular the belief in African religions.”
In 1993, the L’Osservatore Romano estimated the adherents of Voodoo in Benin to comprise a mere 25 percent of its population and dying. What was the result of John Paul’s visit?
Voodoo grew a staggering 60 percent in that same country, according to a January 1996 Associated Press report. Now, Benin celebrates the rebirth of voodoo as an officially recognized religion.
Many more examples of John Paul II mixing religions and taking part in non-Christian religious services, not to mention his recognizing Protestant sects as holy, righteous, and worthy of papal blessings, could be given but these suffice.
Unlike St. Patrick, John Paul knowingly and freely taught, by way of word and action, complete and total apostasy from true Catholicism.
Unlike St. Patrick who converted millions to the true Catholic Faith, John Paul kept and led millions in or into the darkness of false religion including his own subversion of Christianity, as Our Lady of Good Success, La Salette, and Fatima warned, and he did so in the name of Catholicism as one dedicated to Our Lady. His totus tuus was a cover, as was the papal throne which he obviously never truly possessed.
Benedict XVI most likely will canonize John Paul II; why should he not?
John Paul II is the saint of the new religion of Rome masquerading as Catholicism.
by Steven Speray
HuttonGibson.com
John Paul II mostly likely will be canonized by Benedict XVI. And why not? Tom Bethell’s article “Playing Devil’s Advocate” gives possible reasons why this canonization should perhaps be put on hold, but hardly plays devil’s advocate as to why this process should never take place. In the end, Bethell dismisses his entire advocate thesis with, “Obviously, John Paul was a man of personal holiness” and “should proceed without haste in formally discerning his sanctity.”
Bethell states, “only the Church can declare someone a saint,” but great Catholic saints were recognized by the faithful though never canonized by the Church. St. Patrick is a prime example!
John Paul II, like St. Patrick, is recognized by many as a saint. But is John Paul II really, like Patrick, a great Catholic leader filled with personal holiness?
To question John Paul’s personal holiness among Vatican 2 “Catholics” is like asking Muslims whether Mohammed was a true prophet. It cannot be done without greatly upsetting their devoted followers.
However, truth doesn’t man-please and truth is what matters.
What makes John Paul II a man of holiness or unholiness?
Like St. Patrick, John Paul II seemed a deeply prayerful man. But what price orthodoxy? Who canonizes heretics but subsequent heretics?
Was John Paul orthodox in his teaching? Did he knowingly believe and teach any kind of heresy by way of word or action that would be contrary to the faith, keeping men in or leading men into heresy and apostasy?
In Ireland, St. Patrick wasted no time condemning the Druid religion as Devil-worship. He went about the countryside declaring the Gospel while denouncing druid paganism. He welcomed no druids to pray to their gods for peace. He went not inside their pagan temples nor prayed with them, and he certainly never received as a bishop the blessings from leaders of this pagan religion. He actually broke their laws in public and prayed incessantly that his life be spared from death by the druid hand.
St. Patrick was concerned of the Druid spells and poisons precisely because he knew the evils of false religion with its black laws of heathenism, false laws of heresy, and the deceits of idolatry.
The result of Patrick’s witness to Christ in Ireland was the complete conversion of the entire country to Catholicism which, in turn, saved civilization as the Scriptures (as well as many other great works) were preserved by his monks.
How does this contrast with John Paul II?
In 1985, John Paul II prayed “with” African Animists known as “witch doctors.” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.)
On February 5, 1986, in the city of Chennai (Madras for the Zoroastrians) India, John Paul II, alongside Dr. Meher Master Moos, actively participated in a Zoroastrian ceremony by lighting a candle while wearing a pagan stole with the symbols of the pagan religion.
The following year, “During his visit to Phoenix in 1987, John Paul II received a ritual ‘blessing’ from the Pima Indian shaman Emmet White using an eagle’s feather. John Paul said that the act had ‘enriched the Church.’”
In 1986 and 2002, John Paul II invited all the world’s religious leaders to Assisi, Italy to pray and offer sacrifices to each his own god for world peace. Leaders from Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tenrikyo, Shintoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Voodoo attended with prayers, and even with animal sacrifices from the Voodooists, all in the name of peace.
John Paul II also promoted Islamic culture when he stated in his message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000: “Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture… I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture…” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5.)
This is a culture that blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity while misleading literally a billion people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Later, John Paul II, on March 21, 2000, prayed: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)
In his Feb. 4, 1993, address to the Voodoo representative of Benin at Cononou, John Paul II actually promoted the African religion of Voodooism implying that man may be saved in Voodoo.
Voodoo priests saw John Paul’s “Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Africa” as an endorsement of their religion. In a paper by N. Adu Kwabena-Essem entitled “Pope’s Apology to Africans,” the Voodooist said, “African religions had their biggest boost two years ago when Pope John Paul II, on a visit to Benin, apologized for centuries of ridiculing African cultural beliefs by the Western world. Benin is the home of Voodoo…The crucial question is whether the Pope’s ‘penance’ will force others to start respecting African cultures, in particular the belief in African religions.”
In 1993, the L’Osservatore Romano estimated the adherents of Voodoo in Benin to comprise a mere 25 percent of its population and dying. What was the result of John Paul’s visit?
Voodoo grew a staggering 60 percent in that same country, according to a January 1996 Associated Press report. Now, Benin celebrates the rebirth of voodoo as an officially recognized religion.
Many more examples of John Paul II mixing religions and taking part in non-Christian religious services, not to mention his recognizing Protestant sects as holy, righteous, and worthy of papal blessings, could be given but these suffice.
Unlike St. Patrick, John Paul knowingly and freely taught, by way of word and action, complete and total apostasy from true Catholicism.
Unlike St. Patrick who converted millions to the true Catholic Faith, John Paul kept and led millions in or into the darkness of false religion including his own subversion of Christianity, as Our Lady of Good Success, La Salette, and Fatima warned, and he did so in the name of Catholicism as one dedicated to Our Lady. His totus tuus was a cover, as was the papal throne which he obviously never truly possessed.
Benedict XVI most likely will canonize John Paul II; why should he not?
John Paul II is the saint of the new religion of Rome masquerading as Catholicism.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Vatican II: The Best Council the Protestants Ever Had
Vennari Says:
"The Second Vatican Council has been a failure and its Ecumenism a Disaster"
Glen Beck's Teaching and Freemasonry Incompatible with Traditional Roman Catholicism
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
Recently, Fox News personality Glen Beck called together a large gathering on the Washington Mall purportedly in celebration of the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream Speech." He was roundly criticized by African American Civil Rights leaders and leading Christians who adhere to the social justice teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a matter of public record that Beck has evinced little if any concern for the least among us arguing for example that Americans who have been receiving extended unemployment benefits are simply lazy and undeserving of assistance. He is unwilling to recognize that many unjust societal structures still exist in the United States which to a significant extent are responsible for the plight of the millions of unemployed citizens and those who have lost their homes.
Beck as Mormon Convert from Catholicism:
Beck was raised a Roman Catholic and at some point apparently converted to Mormonism. He quite frequently discusses religion on his TV show. Beck speaks as though he is knowledgeable about Christian theology, implying that he personally is a Christian despite the fact that as a practicing Mormon he is a member of an anti-Christian cult meaning, whatever he is, it would be incorrect to call himself a Traditional (orthodox) Christian. Not surprisingly perhaps, Glen Beck has been extremely critical of Barack Obama claiming that the President is a racist and practitioner of a bizarre form of Christianity. Of all the President's faults, being a racist is not one of them although Beck's own publicized statements strongly suggest that he personally is a bigot (bigotry is antithetical to Christianity of course).
Beck's Misunderstanding of Social Justice as Liberation Theology:
One of Glen Beck's recent claims is that President Obama embraces a form of "liberation theology" the nature of which is characterized by an overwhelming concern for social justice which he purports is incompatible with Christianity. Beck argues that there is no place in Christianity for the pursuit of social justice. Obviously, he has no knowledge of the many papal encyclicals of multiple Popes written during the 19th and 20th centuries on the topic of social justice, e.g. Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno etc. Perennial Roman Catholic teaching stresses not only the individual and societal need for the Christian/Theological virtue of Charity (love) but the personal pursuit of justice and the establishing of social structures which further rather than impede the attainment of justice--that is the pursuit of social justice.
Glen Beck while being an admittedly engaging entertainer promulgates false teachings which he alleges are compatible with Christianity. These false teachings are very dangerous for persons attempting to preserve their Traditional Roman Catholic Christianity. They in no way should be embraced by persons or groups who claim to accept the fullness of the teachings of Roman Catholicism. In this sense Glen Beck and his false religious teachings should be eshewed as strongly as the Roman Catholic Church of record has repudiated Freemasonry.
Traditional Roman Catholics should be willing/capable of correcting the false teachings of Glen Beck when confronted with them. This is a minimal apologetic duty, I Peter 3: 15 "Always be prepared always to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence."
Recently, Fox News personality Glen Beck called together a large gathering on the Washington Mall purportedly in celebration of the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream Speech." He was roundly criticized by African American Civil Rights leaders and leading Christians who adhere to the social justice teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a matter of public record that Beck has evinced little if any concern for the least among us arguing for example that Americans who have been receiving extended unemployment benefits are simply lazy and undeserving of assistance. He is unwilling to recognize that many unjust societal structures still exist in the United States which to a significant extent are responsible for the plight of the millions of unemployed citizens and those who have lost their homes.
Beck as Mormon Convert from Catholicism:
Beck was raised a Roman Catholic and at some point apparently converted to Mormonism. He quite frequently discusses religion on his TV show. Beck speaks as though he is knowledgeable about Christian theology, implying that he personally is a Christian despite the fact that as a practicing Mormon he is a member of an anti-Christian cult meaning, whatever he is, it would be incorrect to call himself a Traditional (orthodox) Christian. Not surprisingly perhaps, Glen Beck has been extremely critical of Barack Obama claiming that the President is a racist and practitioner of a bizarre form of Christianity. Of all the President's faults, being a racist is not one of them although Beck's own publicized statements strongly suggest that he personally is a bigot (bigotry is antithetical to Christianity of course).
Beck's Misunderstanding of Social Justice as Liberation Theology:
One of Glen Beck's recent claims is that President Obama embraces a form of "liberation theology" the nature of which is characterized by an overwhelming concern for social justice which he purports is incompatible with Christianity. Beck argues that there is no place in Christianity for the pursuit of social justice. Obviously, he has no knowledge of the many papal encyclicals of multiple Popes written during the 19th and 20th centuries on the topic of social justice, e.g. Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno etc. Perennial Roman Catholic teaching stresses not only the individual and societal need for the Christian/Theological virtue of Charity (love) but the personal pursuit of justice and the establishing of social structures which further rather than impede the attainment of justice--that is the pursuit of social justice.
Glen Beck while being an admittedly engaging entertainer promulgates false teachings which he alleges are compatible with Christianity. These false teachings are very dangerous for persons attempting to preserve their Traditional Roman Catholic Christianity. They in no way should be embraced by persons or groups who claim to accept the fullness of the teachings of Roman Catholicism. In this sense Glen Beck and his false religious teachings should be eshewed as strongly as the Roman Catholic Church of record has repudiated Freemasonry.
Traditional Roman Catholics should be willing/capable of correcting the false teachings of Glen Beck when confronted with them. This is a minimal apologetic duty, I Peter 3: 15 "Always be prepared always to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence."
Sunday, September 5, 2010
God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says
By Carol Glatz
L'Osservatore Romano, May 5-6, 2008
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While apes evolved naturally into pre-human creatures, it was the will and desire of God that turned them into humans, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.
"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular contribution by God, though it remains that their emergence was brought about by natural causes" of evolution, it said.
The article, published in the May 5-6 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini.
The article said that, "when the biological conditions necessary for supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be."
The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees?
"No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability to decide freely," it said.
So rather than picturing it as humans descending from the apes, it said, humans ascended or rose up from the animal kingdom to a higher level, thanks to the hand of God.
As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1968 when he was Father Joseph Ratzinger, God wanted to create a being that could know him and be able to turn to him, the article said.
The emergence of the human is neither a casual or accidental event, nor is it something that was "strictly necessary," demanded by God or the evolutionary process, it said.
Evolution could have ended at the pre-human stage, it said, but thanks to "the free choice of God," humans emerged from their pre-human ancestors.
This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion (of theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent design -- but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit" which cannot come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said.
The movement from being a creature of the animal and physical world to also the spiritual was a gift from God "even if it came at the end of a natural process of evolution," it said.
____________
Evolution and First Humans: A rebuttal
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
The article which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano May 5-6, 2008 edition is yet another example of the post-Conciliar confusion which is now apparent in contradistinction to perennial pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching on the special creation of Human Beings. If only the situation was as simple as alleged by evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini. There are multiple theological problems--primarily the constant teaching of Sacred Tradition re: the special creation of the first human couple--with his assertions not simply biological ones.
Prior to Vatican II, Catholic teaching--as documented in Sacred Tradition for almost 2 millennia--was that God specially created (formed) the first human being (Adam) body and soul from the "slime of the earth" meaning from non-living but pre-existent matter. See Humani generis of Pope Pius XII, 1950 no.’s 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 for example:
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] (my emphasis added)
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
Thus, it should be readily apparent that Adam would have had no parents human or animal even of the bi-pedal primate variety. Moreover, the first woman Eve appeared through an act of God's special creation in which physical material was taken from Adam in some way and formed into the first female. The salient point here is that the first woman was directly formed by God from part of the first man. Wo-man means “out of man.”
Thus the first sexually complimentary human couple (Adam and Eve) was created by God with preternatural gifts including a direct relationship with God and both physical and spiritual eternal life.
After failing the test of obedience which God imposed upon them, Adam and Eve lost their direct relationship with God and physical death became a permanent reality for the human race thereafter.
Perennial Catholic teaching demands that all human beings who have ever lived emanate from Adam and Eve by direct physical propagation. There is no way to accept polygenism (multiple first parents or groups of first humans) of any kind and remain faithful to Sacred Tradition (Humani generis no. 37). The sin of disobedience that Adam and Eve committed must be personally attributable to them and them alone in order for original sin to be "passable" to all other human beings except Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If Adam and Eve were not literally the first human parents specially created by God, the “creation” tenet of Christianity no longer exists. Once that is destroyed, the second tenet (fall from grace) can no longer be imputed to the entire human race and the third tenet (redemption through Christ’s salvific work on the Cross becomes unnecessary and likewise falls. If the tripartite “Creation, Fall, Redemption” is abandoned the entire Creed upon which the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith is based likewise falls of its own weight. Therein we have a completely different religion—another Gospel!
That is precisely what is at risk if it is true that Vatican II adopted the New Theology of Teilhard de Chardin as Atilla Sinke Guimaraes, Wolfgang Smith and others maintain. This is a very profound problem for the so-called New-Theology which eminated from Vatican II. To date it has not been adequately adressed by the current Magisterium.
L'Osservatore Romano, May 5-6, 2008
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While apes evolved naturally into pre-human creatures, it was the will and desire of God that turned them into humans, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.
"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular contribution by God, though it remains that their emergence was brought about by natural causes" of evolution, it said.
The article, published in the May 5-6 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini.
The article said that, "when the biological conditions necessary for supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be."
The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees?
"No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability to decide freely," it said.
So rather than picturing it as humans descending from the apes, it said, humans ascended or rose up from the animal kingdom to a higher level, thanks to the hand of God.
As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1968 when he was Father Joseph Ratzinger, God wanted to create a being that could know him and be able to turn to him, the article said.
The emergence of the human is neither a casual or accidental event, nor is it something that was "strictly necessary," demanded by God or the evolutionary process, it said.
Evolution could have ended at the pre-human stage, it said, but thanks to "the free choice of God," humans emerged from their pre-human ancestors.
This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion (of theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent design -- but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit" which cannot come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said.
The movement from being a creature of the animal and physical world to also the spiritual was a gift from God "even if it came at the end of a natural process of evolution," it said.
____________
Evolution and First Humans: A rebuttal
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
The article which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano May 5-6, 2008 edition is yet another example of the post-Conciliar confusion which is now apparent in contradistinction to perennial pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching on the special creation of Human Beings. If only the situation was as simple as alleged by evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini. There are multiple theological problems--primarily the constant teaching of Sacred Tradition re: the special creation of the first human couple--with his assertions not simply biological ones.
Prior to Vatican II, Catholic teaching--as documented in Sacred Tradition for almost 2 millennia--was that God specially created (formed) the first human being (Adam) body and soul from the "slime of the earth" meaning from non-living but pre-existent matter. See Humani generis of Pope Pius XII, 1950 no.’s 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 for example:
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] (my emphasis added)
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
Thus, it should be readily apparent that Adam would have had no parents human or animal even of the bi-pedal primate variety. Moreover, the first woman Eve appeared through an act of God's special creation in which physical material was taken from Adam in some way and formed into the first female. The salient point here is that the first woman was directly formed by God from part of the first man. Wo-man means “out of man.”
Thus the first sexually complimentary human couple (Adam and Eve) was created by God with preternatural gifts including a direct relationship with God and both physical and spiritual eternal life.
After failing the test of obedience which God imposed upon them, Adam and Eve lost their direct relationship with God and physical death became a permanent reality for the human race thereafter.
Perennial Catholic teaching demands that all human beings who have ever lived emanate from Adam and Eve by direct physical propagation. There is no way to accept polygenism (multiple first parents or groups of first humans) of any kind and remain faithful to Sacred Tradition (Humani generis no. 37). The sin of disobedience that Adam and Eve committed must be personally attributable to them and them alone in order for original sin to be "passable" to all other human beings except Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If Adam and Eve were not literally the first human parents specially created by God, the “creation” tenet of Christianity no longer exists. Once that is destroyed, the second tenet (fall from grace) can no longer be imputed to the entire human race and the third tenet (redemption through Christ’s salvific work on the Cross becomes unnecessary and likewise falls. If the tripartite “Creation, Fall, Redemption” is abandoned the entire Creed upon which the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith is based likewise falls of its own weight. Therein we have a completely different religion—another Gospel!
That is precisely what is at risk if it is true that Vatican II adopted the New Theology of Teilhard de Chardin as Atilla Sinke Guimaraes, Wolfgang Smith and others maintain. This is a very profound problem for the so-called New-Theology which eminated from Vatican II. To date it has not been adequately adressed by the current Magisterium.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
A Catholic Speaks at the Glenn Beck Rally
Editor's Note:
This speech by Philosopher Patrick Lee is outstanding and is completely faithful to Traditional Catholic teaching on the matters adressed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By Patrick Lee
Catholic Advocate HERE...
9/1/10
“For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance . . .”
There is a struggle in our culture today between two visions of the world and our place within the world. On one side of the struggle, many people—especially many in the mainstream media, and in the elite places of government and academia—believe that the supreme good is autonomy or choice, and emphasize this to such an extent that they tend to deny any objective meaning and value in the world.
Each of the speakers tonight selected a text to comment on. I selected Ephesians 2:10: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.” This text challenges us to rededicate ourselves to basic truths about God and our place in the world.
These people believe—or tend toward believing—that each of us has the right to fashion for himself what will be meaningful and valuable. On this view, there is no inherent meaning and value that we must adhere to. And so, on this view, it is a matter of choice who is and who is not worthy of respect and protection of our laws. It is a matter of choice that we can use or dispose of some human beings for the benefit or convenience of others.
On this view too, it is simply a matter of choice what marriage will be—whether it is between a man and a woman, whether it is between two or three, five or seven—because on this view marriage does not have an objective nature.
And on this view, since autonomy is more important than anything else, and public expressions of religion make some people uncomfortable, we have no actual duty to express gratitude in a public manner to a transcendent Creator.
But there is another vision of the world—and that is the vision that we are here tonight to represent and forthrightly proclaim. This is the vision expressed in the text from St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.”
This text clearly affirms three things: First, God has created the world, we are not the creators—God is the Creator. Second, God has a plan for this world, and so we should try to conform our mind and conduct to God’s plan. And third, God has endowed this world with an objective meaning and value that is inherent within it. Autonomy is a good—but it is good only as a means, it is not the supreme good. (Editor's bold emphasis) We are not the creators of what is truly worthwhile, rather we discover and respond to the objective meaning and value that God has created in the world.
This basic truth is also affirmed in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."
Therefore, since it is God, not us, who is the Creator of meaning and value in the world, we owe to God thanks and reverence for the great blessings he has given to us. And this is true of us not only as individuals but also as a country. This country has been truly blessed in countless ways. Truly, as the song says, America is beautiful, and God has shed his grace on her.
And therefore we have a solemn duty as a community to thank God publicly for his many blessings. Every chance we have we should be able to express publicly and clearly a prayer along the lines of the one that used to be said in public schools at the beginning of each day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” This is not the establishment of religion or of any particular religion—it is simply an acknowledgment of a real communal debt.
Likewise, what marriage is, is not up to our choice—what marriage is, is not up to our whims, preferences or desires. Rather, marriage has an objective nature, and we as a community must respect the true nature of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the sharing of lives bodily as well as emotionally and spiritually, in the kind of union that would be naturally fulfilled by having and raising children together. It is not within the prerogative of our autonomy, of our choice—and it is not within the prerogative of judicial fiat—to attempt to change the objective nature of marriage.
Concerning life: We as a nation, we as a community, must recognize the fundamental and equal inherent dignity possessed by every human being, simply in virtue of being a human being.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights"—all human beings—not just those whose lives are convenient or non-burdensome to us—are endowed by their Creator with equal and inherent dignity and rights.
We must not place choice and autonomy above God-given unalienable rights. The culture that emphasizes autonomy to the exclusion of truth is a denial of the most basic principle upon which our country is founded, namely, all human beings possess an equal and inherent fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill, other innocent human beings for their own purposes.
This was the principle at stake in the 19th century with the issue of slavery and in the 20th century and is also at stake with the civil rights movement. This is the same principle that is at stake, in the central debates of our times about abortion and euthanasia. Just as all human beings, no matter what the color of their skin, deserve equal protection of the law, in the same way, all human beings, no matter what their age or degree of development, deserve equal protection of the law.
Thus, public gratitude to the Creator, the real nature of marriage, and the real basis of the equal dignity of all human beings—these are truths, not choices, these are truths, not optional creations by us. For we are God’s handiwork, and God is the Creator, and it is his plan that we are called on to live out.
Finally, Our Lord tells us that at the end of the world he will ask us what we did for the least of his brethren. Did we stand up for children who are being indoctrinated to think that religion is a mere private matter, and almost always hateful and bigoted?
Did we stand up for women and children who are gravely imperiled by the profound confusion concerning the true nature of marriage? And did we stand up for the defenseless unborn human beings who are being discarded in garbage cans or ripped to shreds in the name of autonomy?
So, let us resolve, with God’s grace, to respond with courage and urgency, to these profound injustices. May we, with God’s grace, and with the fellowship of each other, walk in the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance.
Dr. Lee was invited by Glenn Beck and David as the Catholic speaker at the America’s Divine Destiny event held at the Kennedy Center on August 27 the day before the massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. In addition to Beck and Barton, head of Wallbuilders, other speakers included Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition, and Rev. Miles MacPherson, pastor of The Rock Church in San Diego. A sold-out crowd of 2,500 attended the Kennedy center event, which can be viewed here.
Dr. Patrick Lee is John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Institute of Bioethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is nationally known as a pro-life speaker and debater.
Having taught at Franciscan University since 1984, Lee is the author of numerous articles and reviews as well as several books, including, with Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008 and Abortion and Unborn Human Life, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1996.
This speech by Philosopher Patrick Lee is outstanding and is completely faithful to Traditional Catholic teaching on the matters adressed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By Patrick Lee
Catholic Advocate HERE...
9/1/10
“For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance . . .”
There is a struggle in our culture today between two visions of the world and our place within the world. On one side of the struggle, many people—especially many in the mainstream media, and in the elite places of government and academia—believe that the supreme good is autonomy or choice, and emphasize this to such an extent that they tend to deny any objective meaning and value in the world.
Each of the speakers tonight selected a text to comment on. I selected Ephesians 2:10: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.” This text challenges us to rededicate ourselves to basic truths about God and our place in the world.
These people believe—or tend toward believing—that each of us has the right to fashion for himself what will be meaningful and valuable. On this view, there is no inherent meaning and value that we must adhere to. And so, on this view, it is a matter of choice who is and who is not worthy of respect and protection of our laws. It is a matter of choice that we can use or dispose of some human beings for the benefit or convenience of others.
On this view too, it is simply a matter of choice what marriage will be—whether it is between a man and a woman, whether it is between two or three, five or seven—because on this view marriage does not have an objective nature.
And on this view, since autonomy is more important than anything else, and public expressions of religion make some people uncomfortable, we have no actual duty to express gratitude in a public manner to a transcendent Creator.
But there is another vision of the world—and that is the vision that we are here tonight to represent and forthrightly proclaim. This is the vision expressed in the text from St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.”
This text clearly affirms three things: First, God has created the world, we are not the creators—God is the Creator. Second, God has a plan for this world, and so we should try to conform our mind and conduct to God’s plan. And third, God has endowed this world with an objective meaning and value that is inherent within it. Autonomy is a good—but it is good only as a means, it is not the supreme good. (Editor's bold emphasis) We are not the creators of what is truly worthwhile, rather we discover and respond to the objective meaning and value that God has created in the world.
This basic truth is also affirmed in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."
Therefore, since it is God, not us, who is the Creator of meaning and value in the world, we owe to God thanks and reverence for the great blessings he has given to us. And this is true of us not only as individuals but also as a country. This country has been truly blessed in countless ways. Truly, as the song says, America is beautiful, and God has shed his grace on her.
And therefore we have a solemn duty as a community to thank God publicly for his many blessings. Every chance we have we should be able to express publicly and clearly a prayer along the lines of the one that used to be said in public schools at the beginning of each day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” This is not the establishment of religion or of any particular religion—it is simply an acknowledgment of a real communal debt.
Likewise, what marriage is, is not up to our choice—what marriage is, is not up to our whims, preferences or desires. Rather, marriage has an objective nature, and we as a community must respect the true nature of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the sharing of lives bodily as well as emotionally and spiritually, in the kind of union that would be naturally fulfilled by having and raising children together. It is not within the prerogative of our autonomy, of our choice—and it is not within the prerogative of judicial fiat—to attempt to change the objective nature of marriage.
Concerning life: We as a nation, we as a community, must recognize the fundamental and equal inherent dignity possessed by every human being, simply in virtue of being a human being.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights"—all human beings—not just those whose lives are convenient or non-burdensome to us—are endowed by their Creator with equal and inherent dignity and rights.
We must not place choice and autonomy above God-given unalienable rights. The culture that emphasizes autonomy to the exclusion of truth is a denial of the most basic principle upon which our country is founded, namely, all human beings possess an equal and inherent fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill, other innocent human beings for their own purposes.
This was the principle at stake in the 19th century with the issue of slavery and in the 20th century and is also at stake with the civil rights movement. This is the same principle that is at stake, in the central debates of our times about abortion and euthanasia. Just as all human beings, no matter what the color of their skin, deserve equal protection of the law, in the same way, all human beings, no matter what their age or degree of development, deserve equal protection of the law.
Thus, public gratitude to the Creator, the real nature of marriage, and the real basis of the equal dignity of all human beings—these are truths, not choices, these are truths, not optional creations by us. For we are God’s handiwork, and God is the Creator, and it is his plan that we are called on to live out.
Finally, Our Lord tells us that at the end of the world he will ask us what we did for the least of his brethren. Did we stand up for children who are being indoctrinated to think that religion is a mere private matter, and almost always hateful and bigoted?
Did we stand up for women and children who are gravely imperiled by the profound confusion concerning the true nature of marriage? And did we stand up for the defenseless unborn human beings who are being discarded in garbage cans or ripped to shreds in the name of autonomy?
So, let us resolve, with God’s grace, to respond with courage and urgency, to these profound injustices. May we, with God’s grace, and with the fellowship of each other, walk in the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance.
Dr. Lee was invited by Glenn Beck and David as the Catholic speaker at the America’s Divine Destiny event held at the Kennedy Center on August 27 the day before the massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. In addition to Beck and Barton, head of Wallbuilders, other speakers included Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition, and Rev. Miles MacPherson, pastor of The Rock Church in San Diego. A sold-out crowd of 2,500 attended the Kennedy center event, which can be viewed here.
Dr. Patrick Lee is John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Institute of Bioethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is nationally known as a pro-life speaker and debater.
Having taught at Franciscan University since 1984, Lee is the author of numerous articles and reviews as well as several books, including, with Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008 and Abortion and Unborn Human Life, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1996.
Friday, September 3, 2010
What should we think of the Sedevacantists?
SSPX.org HERE...
QUESTION 15
What should we think of the Sedevacantists? NB: Some of the examples are in reference to the late Pope John Paul II
In the face of the scandal of a pope who can sign Dignitatis humanae, radically change the liturgy of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist for an aberrant ecumenism, etc., some have concluded that the last popes cannot have been true popes, or else that they have lost the pontificate because of such scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication, insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus:
he who is not a member of the Church can’t be its head.
but a heretic is not a member of the Church,
now, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics,
therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church,
and so all their acts are to be completely ignored.
But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these “popes” or “bishops.” A minority of these will elect their own “pope” (e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or Saint Jovite, Canada).
The argument’s strength is in the real scandal of the Conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the Church’s “new direction”; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics. (Editor's NOTE: or in positing a solution which does not demand Divine miraculous intervention)
You are a “material” heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
you are a “formal” heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway.
Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions* to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, §1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the pope (canon 1556), and the bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.
* To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233). The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).
Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven. (Editor's NOTE: Some Traditional Catholics argue that the Pope, Cardinal or Bishop who knowingly advocates or promulgates heresy or apostacy or should by virtue of rank and education know better is, ipso-facto removed from office)
But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially i.e., as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse. (Editor's NOTE: while perhaps true, this reason cannot be a sufficient answer for why such a prelate does not in fact lose office since it rests only upon the disastrous consequences not the truth of the prelates condition before Jesus Christ who knows all. Admittedly, this is a troublesome and it would appear debatable issue)
The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that there are other explanations for the “material heretic” pope [see section a below], and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers [b] or consequences [c].
The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.* But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority....
* A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture (Editor's NOTE: this is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing in Traditional Catholicism supported the notion of ecumenism, rather, the non-Catholic sects were encouraged to return to the fold of the one true church), thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'" (Ut Unum Sint, §3). If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecumenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a Pope John Paul II mean by such absolute terms?
The Church is indefectible (PRINCIPLE 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (PRINCIPLE 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.
Now, we can understand a break in the line of popes from the death of one to the election of the next, and that it may drag on.
But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such? (Editor's NOTE: this is a very disturbing problem which would appear to have no answer in the natural realm)
The Church is visible (PRINCIPLE 3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause).
If the Church has not had a pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a pope again, as the current discipline grants only to cardinals the power to elect a pope?
The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal “electors of the pope” be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that cardinals elect him.
A few sedevacantists hold that he has been or will be directly designated by private revelation from heaven.
There are spiritual consequences of sedevacantism:
sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;
and invariably it leads to one’s recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth. Each becomes, in practice, his own little “pope,” the rule of faith and orthodoxy, the judge of the validity of sacraments.*
*Consider the arguments from "Bishop" Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is said that Cardinal Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was Freemason, and so all his ordinations were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments of those he ordained, and of those they ordained... In fact, whereas that Lienart was a Freemason is only an unproven allegation of one writer; and Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway, if he used the correct external rite (unless he revealed a contrary internal intention, which he did not). Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrated by three bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid. Cf. ON RUMORS AND THEIR SOURCE for more information on this matter.
This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.
QUESTION 15
What should we think of the Sedevacantists? NB: Some of the examples are in reference to the late Pope John Paul II
In the face of the scandal of a pope who can sign Dignitatis humanae, radically change the liturgy of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist for an aberrant ecumenism, etc., some have concluded that the last popes cannot have been true popes, or else that they have lost the pontificate because of such scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication, insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus:
he who is not a member of the Church can’t be its head.
but a heretic is not a member of the Church,
now, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics,
therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church,
and so all their acts are to be completely ignored.
But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these “popes” or “bishops.” A minority of these will elect their own “pope” (e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or Saint Jovite, Canada).
The argument’s strength is in the real scandal of the Conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the Church’s “new direction”; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics. (Editor's NOTE: or in positing a solution which does not demand Divine miraculous intervention)
You are a “material” heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
you are a “formal” heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway.
Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions* to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, §1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the pope (canon 1556), and the bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.
* To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233). The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).
Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven. (Editor's NOTE: Some Traditional Catholics argue that the Pope, Cardinal or Bishop who knowingly advocates or promulgates heresy or apostacy or should by virtue of rank and education know better is, ipso-facto removed from office)
But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially i.e., as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse. (Editor's NOTE: while perhaps true, this reason cannot be a sufficient answer for why such a prelate does not in fact lose office since it rests only upon the disastrous consequences not the truth of the prelates condition before Jesus Christ who knows all. Admittedly, this is a troublesome and it would appear debatable issue)
The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that there are other explanations for the “material heretic” pope [see section a below], and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers [b] or consequences [c].
The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.* But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority....
* A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture (Editor's NOTE: this is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing in Traditional Catholicism supported the notion of ecumenism, rather, the non-Catholic sects were encouraged to return to the fold of the one true church), thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'" (Ut Unum Sint, §3). If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecumenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a Pope John Paul II mean by such absolute terms?
The Church is indefectible (PRINCIPLE 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (PRINCIPLE 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.
Now, we can understand a break in the line of popes from the death of one to the election of the next, and that it may drag on.
But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such? (Editor's NOTE: this is a very disturbing problem which would appear to have no answer in the natural realm)
The Church is visible (PRINCIPLE 3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause).
If the Church has not had a pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a pope again, as the current discipline grants only to cardinals the power to elect a pope?
The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal “electors of the pope” be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that cardinals elect him.
A few sedevacantists hold that he has been or will be directly designated by private revelation from heaven.
There are spiritual consequences of sedevacantism:
sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;
and invariably it leads to one’s recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth. Each becomes, in practice, his own little “pope,” the rule of faith and orthodoxy, the judge of the validity of sacraments.*
*Consider the arguments from "Bishop" Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is said that Cardinal Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was Freemason, and so all his ordinations were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments of those he ordained, and of those they ordained... In fact, whereas that Lienart was a Freemason is only an unproven allegation of one writer; and Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway, if he used the correct external rite (unless he revealed a contrary internal intention, which he did not). Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrated by three bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid. Cf. ON RUMORS AND THEIR SOURCE for more information on this matter.
This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.
The Post-Conciliar Church . . .
A New Religion
A CATHOLIC FAQs ARTICLE
SSPX.orgHERE...
Featured in the Q&A section of the April 2003 issue of The Angelus,
this answer was long enough to warrant itself as an article
Is it possible to say that the post-Conciliar Church is a new religion, and if so, how can it be considered as Catholic?
The answer to this question is found in the final declaration of the International Symposium of Theology organized by the Society of St. Pius X and attended by 62 traditional Catholic theologians in Paris in October 2002. The purpose of the statement was to put together a synthesis of the teaching of Vatican II, and to clarify the main principles upon which it differs from the teaching of the Magisterium. These broad lines can be helpful for us in interpreting the documents of the post-Conciliar Church, and refuting its errors. They demonstrate beyond all doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre was right when he affirmed that the spirit of Vatican II is not just an abuse of some liberal theologians and bishops, but that it is contained in the very texts of the Council itself. If the liberals continually refer to the texts of Vatican II, it is because from these texts themselves emanates, under the sweet appearance of kindness and dialogue, the stench of naturalism, of the corruption of the Faith.
The theologians affirmed that there are eight main, fundamental attitudes that underlie all the post-Conciliar changes, which eight philosophical principles masquerading as religion make of Vatican II the introduction of a new religion, all within the exterior structure, hierarchy, language and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. Allow me to list them for you.
1) Novelty
There is no attempt to hide the desire for newness, that is of a new and different religion, despite the assertion that the Faith has not changed. A transformation is required "too on the religious level," following the "real social and cultural transformation" of our "new age of history" (Gaudium et Spes, §4). Hence the need for an aggiornamento, bringing religion up to date with our times. One of the great means for bringing about this novelty, whilst appearing to profess the same doctrines, is the teaching "that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §11). It is consequently possible, they say, to hold on to only the most fundamental truths, discarding or putting the others aside. This is the basis of the novelty of ecumenism and dialogue, which is truly a new religion, for it requires Catholics to accept the beliefs of other believers. MORE...
A CATHOLIC FAQs ARTICLE
SSPX.orgHERE...
Featured in the Q&A section of the April 2003 issue of The Angelus,
this answer was long enough to warrant itself as an article
Is it possible to say that the post-Conciliar Church is a new religion, and if so, how can it be considered as Catholic?
The answer to this question is found in the final declaration of the International Symposium of Theology organized by the Society of St. Pius X and attended by 62 traditional Catholic theologians in Paris in October 2002. The purpose of the statement was to put together a synthesis of the teaching of Vatican II, and to clarify the main principles upon which it differs from the teaching of the Magisterium. These broad lines can be helpful for us in interpreting the documents of the post-Conciliar Church, and refuting its errors. They demonstrate beyond all doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre was right when he affirmed that the spirit of Vatican II is not just an abuse of some liberal theologians and bishops, but that it is contained in the very texts of the Council itself. If the liberals continually refer to the texts of Vatican II, it is because from these texts themselves emanates, under the sweet appearance of kindness and dialogue, the stench of naturalism, of the corruption of the Faith.
The theologians affirmed that there are eight main, fundamental attitudes that underlie all the post-Conciliar changes, which eight philosophical principles masquerading as religion make of Vatican II the introduction of a new religion, all within the exterior structure, hierarchy, language and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. Allow me to list them for you.
1) Novelty
There is no attempt to hide the desire for newness, that is of a new and different religion, despite the assertion that the Faith has not changed. A transformation is required "too on the religious level," following the "real social and cultural transformation" of our "new age of history" (Gaudium et Spes, §4). Hence the need for an aggiornamento, bringing religion up to date with our times. One of the great means for bringing about this novelty, whilst appearing to profess the same doctrines, is the teaching "that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §11). It is consequently possible, they say, to hold on to only the most fundamental truths, discarding or putting the others aside. This is the basis of the novelty of ecumenism and dialogue, which is truly a new religion, for it requires Catholics to accept the beliefs of other believers. MORE...
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Church blasts gay priests leading 'double life'
By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
July 23, 2010, 1:37PM
ROME — The Catholic Church in Italy, still reeling from the clerical sex abuse scandal, lashed out Friday at gay priests who are leading a double life, urging them to come out of the closet and leave the priesthood.
The Diocese of Rome issued the strongly worded statement after the conservative Panorama newsweekly said in a cover story and accompanying video that it had interviewed three gay priests in Rome and accompanied them to gay clubs and bars and to sexual encounters with strangers, including one in a church building.
One of the priests, a Frenchman identified only as Paul, celebrated Mass in the morning before driving the two escorts he had hired to attend a party the night before to the airport, Panorama said.
In a statement Friday, the Rome diocese denounced those priests who were leading a "double life," said they shouldn't have been ordained and promised that the church would rigorously pursue anyone who is behaving in a way that wasn't dignified for a priest.
It insisted that the vast majority of Rome's 1,300 priests were truthful to their vocations and were "models of morality for all."
Those who aren't faithful to their vows "know that no one is forcing them to remain priests, taking advantage of only the benefits," the diocese said. "Coherency would demand that they come forward. We don't wish any ill-will against them, but we cannot accept that because of their behavior the honor of all the others is sullied."
No one knows the exact number of gays in the priesthood. Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Church teaching holds that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," and the Vatican has recently cracked down on gays in the priesthood.
In his first major policy statement as pope, Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 issued an instruction barring actively gay priests from seminaries. The Instruction said men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'" cannot be admitted to seminaries. The only exception would be for those with a "transitory problem" that had been overcome for at least three years.
The fact that the document was being worked on came to light in 2002 at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States. A study commissioned by U.S. bishops found that most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.
Experts on sex offenders say homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that hasn't stifled questions about gay seminarians.
The Rome diocese appeared to link the two, quoting Benedict in denouncing the sins of priests in reference to the Panorama article. The pontiff had used those words to deplore pedophile priests, not gay priests.
One Catholic commentator noted that the problem wasn't that there were "three priests running wild in gay Rome."
"There are plenty of priests — straight and gay — who misbehave sexually with other adults," said Bryan Cones, managing editor of the liberal U.S. Catholic Magazine.
"The problem is that only these gay priests are the news, not all the other gay priests who labor faithfully, honoring their commitments along with their straight brothers as best they can. We don't hear their stories because they can't tell them for fear of expulsion. And that isn't right."
The arrest of a popular Connecticut priest who frequented male escorts and strip bars made international headlines earlier this month after he was arrested and charged with first-degree larceny, accused of stealing $1.3 million over seven years from the church to finance his lavish lifestyle.
The Associated Press
July 23, 2010, 1:37PM
ROME — The Catholic Church in Italy, still reeling from the clerical sex abuse scandal, lashed out Friday at gay priests who are leading a double life, urging them to come out of the closet and leave the priesthood.
The Diocese of Rome issued the strongly worded statement after the conservative Panorama newsweekly said in a cover story and accompanying video that it had interviewed three gay priests in Rome and accompanied them to gay clubs and bars and to sexual encounters with strangers, including one in a church building.
One of the priests, a Frenchman identified only as Paul, celebrated Mass in the morning before driving the two escorts he had hired to attend a party the night before to the airport, Panorama said.
In a statement Friday, the Rome diocese denounced those priests who were leading a "double life," said they shouldn't have been ordained and promised that the church would rigorously pursue anyone who is behaving in a way that wasn't dignified for a priest.
It insisted that the vast majority of Rome's 1,300 priests were truthful to their vocations and were "models of morality for all."
Those who aren't faithful to their vows "know that no one is forcing them to remain priests, taking advantage of only the benefits," the diocese said. "Coherency would demand that they come forward. We don't wish any ill-will against them, but we cannot accept that because of their behavior the honor of all the others is sullied."
No one knows the exact number of gays in the priesthood. Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Church teaching holds that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," and the Vatican has recently cracked down on gays in the priesthood.
In his first major policy statement as pope, Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 issued an instruction barring actively gay priests from seminaries. The Instruction said men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'" cannot be admitted to seminaries. The only exception would be for those with a "transitory problem" that had been overcome for at least three years.
The fact that the document was being worked on came to light in 2002 at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States. A study commissioned by U.S. bishops found that most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.
Experts on sex offenders say homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that hasn't stifled questions about gay seminarians.
The Rome diocese appeared to link the two, quoting Benedict in denouncing the sins of priests in reference to the Panorama article. The pontiff had used those words to deplore pedophile priests, not gay priests.
One Catholic commentator noted that the problem wasn't that there were "three priests running wild in gay Rome."
"There are plenty of priests — straight and gay — who misbehave sexually with other adults," said Bryan Cones, managing editor of the liberal U.S. Catholic Magazine.
"The problem is that only these gay priests are the news, not all the other gay priests who labor faithfully, honoring their commitments along with their straight brothers as best they can. We don't hear their stories because they can't tell them for fear of expulsion. And that isn't right."
The arrest of a popular Connecticut priest who frequented male escorts and strip bars made international headlines earlier this month after he was arrested and charged with first-degree larceny, accused of stealing $1.3 million over seven years from the church to finance his lavish lifestyle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?
In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)
This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.