Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-23-2009

Salvete AC readers!

Buckle Up! Because here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. I want to welcome Blackadder to American Catholic.  Yes, it’s belated, but needed nonetheless.  He has been an excellent addition to our fledgling website.  He’s written many exceptional posts over at Vox Nova and we are glad to have him here with us.  He also writes at the fine political group blog, Southern Appeal.

2. Meaningless word of the day, Ecumenism.

A close second, Interreligious Dialogue.

…which dovetails very well into my third pick…

3Caritas in veritate, as some critics suggest, may have been a poorly written encyclical.  The argument goes that unlike the previous two encyclicals, Deus caritas est and Spe salvi, Caritas in veritate was a group effort.  Which may explain the many delays in issuing the encyclical.  And also why it has so far received a mixed response from all across the theological and political spectrum.

Not to worry, in my humble opinion, Ut Unum Sint is by far the most poorly written encyclical within the past 100 years.  How can one read this without defining ecumenism and its various neologisms.  What utter confusion!

4. I’m sure this point will be overlooked now that I may have started a tempest over Ut Unum Sint, but nonetheless here we go…

Many of us here at American Catholic refer to our website at A.C. or sometimes T.A.C., for The American Catholic.  While trying to fall asleep I was thinking of a cool name to refer to A.C. and presto, maybe we should add ‘Online‘ at the end of our name!  So it would be The American Catholic Online, or T.A.C.O.!

5.  A neat conversion story written by Louisiana’s Governor Bobby Jindal here.

6. And the Catholic World Report has apparently updated the image of their website.  I’m not sure how recently they have done this, but it’s compact and easy on the eyes.

7. For the last Res et Explicatio click here.

85 Responses to Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-23-2009

  • “Ecumenism” is a meaningless word? Tell that to the Vatican.

    “The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

    “Today, in many parts of the world, under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit, many efforts are being made in prayer, word and action to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.”

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

    “In the same way, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” recently published (1992), includes the ecumenical dimension as part of the basic teaching for all the faithful of the Church.”

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

    This post is another fine representation of cafeteria Catholicism.

  • ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
    TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION
    FOR INTERRELIGIOUS AND INTERCULTURAL
    RESEARCH AND DIALOGUE

    Thursday, 1 February 2007

    Dear Friends,

    It is a joy for me, having been one of the founding members of the Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue, to meet you again and to welcome you today at the Vatican. I greet in particular His Royal Highness Prince Hassan of Jordan whom I have the pleasure to meet on this occasion.

    I thank H.E. Metropolitan Damaskinos of Andrianoupolis, your President, who has presented to me the first result of your work: a joint edition of the three Sacred Books of the three monotheistic religions in their original language and in chronological order. Indeed, this was the very first project we conceived of in creating the Foundation together, so as to “make a specific and positive contribution to the dialogue between cultures and religions”.

    As I have said on several occasions, in continuation with the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate and with my beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us.

    Indeed, it was this idea that led us to create this Foundation which aims to seek “the most essential and authentic message that the three monotheistic religions, namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, can address to the world of the 21st century”, to give a new impetus to interreligious and intercultural dialogue by means of our common research and by highlighting and disseminating everything in our respective spiritual heritages that helps to strengthen fraternal ties between our communities of believers.

    Consequently, the Foundation had to work out an instrument of reference that would help us overcome misunderstandings and prejudices and offer a common platform for future work. Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today.

    The reinterpretation, and for some people, the discovery of the texts that so many people across the world venerate as sacred, demands mutual respect in trusting dialogue. Our contemporaries expect of us a message of harmony and peace and the practical expression of our common willingness to help them achieve their legitimate aspiration to live in justice and peace.

    They are entitled to expect of us a strong sign of renewed understanding and reinforced cooperation in accordance with the actual objective of the Foundation, which proposes to offer “to the world in this way a sign of hope and the promise of divine Blessings that always accompanies charitable action”.

    The Foundation’s work will contribute to a growing awareness of everything in the different cultures of our time which is in conformity with divine wisdom and serves human dignity, the better to discern and reject everything that usurps God’s name and deforms man’s humanity.

    Thus, we are invited to engage in a common task of reflection. This is a labour of reason for which I wholeheartedly appeal, with you, to be able to examine God’s mystery in the light of our respective religious traditions and wisdom so as to discern the values likely to illumine the men and women of all the peoples on earth, whatever their culture and religion.

    For this reason it is henceforth invaluable to have at our disposal a common reference point, thanks to the work you have done. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.

    Our respective religious traditions all insist on the sacred character of the life and dignity of the human person. We believe that God will bless our initiatives if they converge for the good of all his children and enable them to respect each other in brotherhood world-wide.

    Together with all people of good will, we aspire to peace. That is why I insist once again: interreligious and intercultural research and dialogue are not an option but a vital need for our time.

    May the Almighty bless your work and grant an abundance of his Blessings to you and to your loved ones!

  • Ecumenism is meaningless? Caritas in Veritate is poorly written?

    What the heck?

  • “What the heck?”

    ditto, and I rather liked Ut Unum Sint.

  • Ecumenism is meaningless in the sense that the neo-modernists and the left have misappropriated the term to mean the Catholic Church abandoning the principles upon which she was founded, in favor of a more generic and FALSE Christianity in order to appease the separated brethren sufficiently to establish some sort of loose affiliation which they would consider “unity”. That is FALSE ecumenism, with true ecumenism being the goal of restoring those separated brethren to the One True Church by abandoning their erroneous doctrines and invalid hierarchies.

    Tito did not say the latest encyclical is “poorly written” he acknowledged that some critics have said so. It clearly is more of a committee document than Benedict’s prior encyclicals.

    Ut Unam Sint? Good heavens, that is by far the worst encyclical since the 2nd Vatican Council, or perhaps EVER. There’s a reason that our current Holy Father as head of the Holy Office, issued a major clarification to restore proper understanding of the mission of the Church and the true meaning of Ecumenism.

  • If a text leads to a clarification later, that doesn’t mean the text itself is written badly (otherwise, we must all consider the Bible one of the worst books ever written). Theology is always engaged with this kind of work; compare St Cyril of Alexandria vs Pope St Leo; I wouldn’t call Cyril a bad writer because he doesn’t use the advanced terminology of Leo, because, well, he didn’t have use of it in his time!

  • “Neo-modernists”? Who are these people in the Church who have with their practice so destroyed the meaning of ecumenism? Are they Church officials? Bishops’ conferences? Renegade theologians? General ill-willers?

  • Henry & Alan,

    Could you find for me in Ut Unum Sint what the definition of “ecumenism” is?

    I doubt you can find it.

  • Tito

    Can you find in the Bible a definition of the Trinity? Does it make the Trinity not in the Bible? Documents are after written with the presupposition that the basic terms within it don’t need to be defined.

  • Henry Karlson,

    Even the text of infallible proclamations/documents does not necessarily make them impeccable.

    Your point concerning thus seems to make the case that such documents are indeed so.

    If that is the case, your contention is as remarkably risible as Tito’s TACO is as derisive.

  • Henry K.,

    I didn’t say Bible, I said Ut Unum Sint.

    Again, you can’t find it because Pope John Paul II never defined “ecumenism”.

    Ecumenism is a protestant invented word. Nowhere is it defined.

    It is so ambiguous it could mean anything, ipso facto, it can be meaningless.

  • Ecumenism is a protestant invented word.

    I think if we wanted to start digging into the origins of much of the vocabulary commonly utilized in Catholic theology, the origins will not be majority Catholic.

  • “Ecumenism is a protestant invented word. Nowhere is it defined.”

    A couple things, you are arguing a Latin document to define words in English? Again this is rather weird. Second, the source of the word is Greek, and nowhere I see is the word “invented by Protestantism.” You will find ecumenism engaged long before Protestants.

    While the word itself is not defined in the document, the activity which the Church supports is given throughout. More importantly, just because a document doesn’t define the meaning for you, doesn’t make it meaningless, just as the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but not meaningless. Again, this is basic — the arguments you make remind me of Protestants as they argue definitions “via the Bible.” They don’t understand definitions are presupposed if a word is used, and the Bible doesn’t define words, just as a Papal Encyclical doesn’t have to define every word it uses to make the word meaningful.

    As for a fine example of dissident Catholicism, just remember who it is pointing at the Church and telling it that its declarations are in error! You are telling the Church it is calling us to something meaningless, not I. This is the example of your clear Cafeteria style Catholicism. It is quite apparent you don’t listen to the Church, you only take things out of context for your non-Catholic political ideology, and if the Church says different, you begin to mock the Church.

  • HK,

    issued a major clarification to restore proper understanding of the mission of the Church

    First let me correct the record, the clarification was issued after the ascension of Benedict XVI to the papacy, and so was under the prefect Cdl. Levada technically (though clearly it was written by and/or closely supervised by Benedict XVI).

    Secondly, this clarification after only 12 years is in no way related to re-examinations of the early fathers work 100’s of years later. They’re just not the same thing. The document in question is not simply an analysis, it is corrective. The corrective was necessary because the neo-modernists and leftists began taking advantage of the difficulties in Ut Unum Sint to further their destructive efforts, completely ignoring 2000 years of doctrine. The same occurred after the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council.

  • Michael

    It is true that the origin of the word is not important (most words can probably be traced back to pagans), but in this case, he is also in error. The word is derived from Greek – and is cognate with “economy.” Ecumenism isn’t a modern phenomena – again, as I have said, all one has to do is look back in time, and one will find Florence, which was 15th century ecumenism.

  • Matt

    You really should look into the time between Ephesus and Chalcedon, and also, the reaction of those who opposed Chalcedon. You will find that clarification was indeed needed, soon after Ephesus, but that does not dismiss the value of Ephesus itself. This is the same thing. The Church is always engaging, going deeper, bringing up something new.

  • Tito,

    Ut Unum Sint is built on top of the Second Vatican Council’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which notes the following:

    “The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity.”

    I would recommend a careful reading of Unitatis Redintegratio to frame Ut Unum Sint. Having read some responses to Ut Unum Sint, primarily on the part of some Orthodox, it’s impact is important. To pass it off as some sort of Protestant invention is, in my opinion, silly.

  • HK,

    So because you can’t find the definition you begin your ad hominem attacks on me.

    Typical Vox Nova poster.

  • Tito

    No, I didn’t make any ad hominems — heck, there is a post on VN you need to read, now that you make that claim.

  • Alan Phipps,

    you should also review Unam Sanctum, Redemptoris Missio to properly understand the Church’s teaching on how unity is to be restored and maintained. Where Peter is there is the Church, he is the earthly sign of unity.

  • Tito, I think you’re being willfully obtuse on this.

  • Matt,

    I’m only helping to frame Ut Unum Sint. I don’t dispute that “ecumenism” has been hijacked by some groups to mean something it does not. I don’t think your beef is really with me.

  • Henry K.,

    “the ecumenical movement really began within the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the Reform”.
    –Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II

    Ut Unum Sint is not ex cathedra.

    Pope Pius XI condemned any attempts at ecumenism in Mortalium Animos.

    Pope Pius XII made a prediction concerning the problems of ecumenism, being of Protestant orgigen:

    “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.”

  • Ecumenism is but a vile virus that has become an apparent plague on Rome, which will ultimately lead to its very undoing.

    You need only take notice of purported Catholics who are nothing but Gnostics in disguise, succumbing to various heresies and cultish folk practices given to the provocation of the spirits.

  • Tito, it’s interesting that you dismiss one encyclical by citing another, and bolster it with a purported quote from Pope Pius XII that only appears as a “so-and-so said he heard that the Pope said” kind of quote on far-right Traditionalist websites. It would appear that cherry-picking isn’t only a left-wing activity.

  • e.,

    Well I wouldn’t go that far.

    “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
    – – Holy Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18

    Ecumenism may have harmed the Church but it won’t be it’s ruin.

  • JohnH,

    I am not dismissing Ut Unum Sint, I am just pointing out that it isn’t ex cathedra and there still needs to be a better clarification on the subject of ecumenism.

    40 years of “ecumenism” has produced zero, “0”, results.

    Outside of cut-off chicken heads at Fatima and heathens desecrating the churches of Assissi, it has been fruitless.

  • JohnH,

    And no, I didn’t pick the quote from “traditionalist” websites, I got it from the Vatican website. Unless of course you are accusing the Vatican of being traditionalist.

    Take a chill pill dude.

  • Alan Phipps,

    I’m only helping to frame Ut Unum Sint. I don’t dispute that “ecumenism” has been hijacked by some groups to mean something it does not. I don’t think your beef is really with me.

    there’s no beef really, I just want to point out that one can’t properly understand Ut Unam Sint by reading it and Unitatis Redentigratio (UR). One must also read older documents, and the correctives from Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the doctrinal note which followed from UR.

    Speaking of which, after further research, Dominus Iesus was in fact issued under Cdl. Ratzinger as a corrective for UUS and only 5 years after it’s issue, subsequently another corrective was issued under Cdl. Levada.

    e.,

    Ecumenism is but a vile virus that has become an apparent plague on Rome, which will ultimately lead to its very undoing.

    I don’t think it’s possible for Rome to be “ultimately” undone, pretty sure Christ assured us of that. Clearly the false understanding of ecumenism has been a vile virus which harms the Body of Christ but can not destroy it.

  • “Neo-modernists”? Who are these people in the Church who have with their practice so destroyed the meaning of ecumenism? Are they Church officials? Bishops’ conferences? Renegade theologians? General ill-willers?

    Christopher Ferrara in his critique of ecumenism places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the most recently deceased pontiff. The Latin Mass has an occasional feature on the problems which ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue have presented and Ferrara and Woods write at length on the subject in The Great Facade.

  • Tito, you need to know how to read things in context; Pope John Paul II, in saying, “the ecumenical movement really began within the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the Reform,” is of course talking about the modern ecumenical movement in the 20th century. However it is not the foundation of ecumenism, which is something else.

  • And no, I didn’t pick the quote from “traditionalist” websites, I got it from the Vatican website. Unless of course you are accusing the Vatican of being traditionalist.

    OK, please show me where that quote shows up on the Vatican website. The one that begins with “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima.” I can only find it though sedevacantist / SSPX websites.

  • Henry K.,

    I agree with you on that point.

    Like you, I want all Christians united.

    I just wished that Pope John Paul II would have used more concise language than the ambiguities that are infested in Ut Unum Sint.

    I doubt Ut Unum Sint will ever be as relevant as when it was first issued. Like Vatican II, it will be our children who will see what is effective and what is not effective.

    You and I are on the same side, we want to evangelize the world.

  • “Dominus Iesu” was actually not written as a corrective to UUS, but to deal with some Catholic theologians engaging a broad form of pluralism which rendered Jesus insignificant. It was an internal theological document, not a document which was at all written in response to ecumenism.

  • “Outside of cut-off chicken heads at Fatima and heathens desecrating the churches of Assissi, it has been fruitless.”

    I think that such a conclusion is short sighted. There has been great strides in our ecumenical efforts with the Eastern Orthodox, and hopefully with the TAC. Did you read Unitatis Redintegratio? Just because it doesn’t move according to your schedule or expectations doesn’t make it fruitless. Nor is it rendered irrelevant when other groups reduce enumenism to indifferentism, which the church has also condemned.

  • JohnH.,

    I was referring to Mortalium Animos.

    Please, where is the evidence of any ecumenical success?

  • ““I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.””

    Speaks nothing of ecumenism. As the Church makes clear, even in UUS, ecumenism is not about the alteration of Church teaching; it is not a syncretism.

  • Matt,
    Cardinal Levada’s document was in response to misinterpretations of and questions about Dominus Iesus, which was issued by the CDF under Joseph Ratzinger.

  • Sorry, Matt, I missed where you noted the correct timeline. Shouldn’t have skimmed through the subsequent responses.

  • Matt McDonald:

    Agreed; however, it has most assuredly not only harmed the Body of Christ, but it has done so to such remarkable extent so as to disfigure it almost rendering it to where you can hardly see the Catholicism of today as actually being “Catholic”.

  • Henry Karlson,

    “Dominus Iesu” was actually not written as a corrective to UUS, but to deal with some Catholic theologians engaging a broad form of pluralism which rendered Jesus insignificant. It was an internal theological document, not a document which was at all written in response to ecumenism.

    Unless you’re actually familiar with the “ecumenism movement” in which case you would know it has been drifting towards pluralism since the 70’s and recognize that this illicit movement had used UUS to further it’s cause, thus justifying it’s inclusion in the discussion.

    Alan,

    I think that such a conclusion is short sighted. There has been great strides in our ecumenical efforts with the Eastern Orthodox, and hopefully with the TAC. Did you read Unitatis Redintegratio? Just because it doesn’t move according to your schedule or expectations doesn’t make it fruitless. Nor is it rendered irrelevant when other groups reduce enumenism to indifferentism, which the church has also condemned.

    Tito forgot to mention the illicit inter-communion which the Canadian Bishops have all but publicly embraced… I don’t think Tito is objecting to the TRUE ecumenism which is going on with the Orthodox and TAC, he is rejecting false ecumenism (on that he ought to be more precise) as does the Church.

  • e., sounds like you’d agree with this fellow:

    Ecumenism — is one of the mechanisms by which this mixing is achieved in practice. It is a relatively recent satanic invention, which already proved to be a huge success. Under the guise of “super-Christian love” it attempts to blur and, eventually, destroy the boundaries of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, depriving the faithful of the Holy Mysteries and corrupting their souls.

    Except that he’s not Roman Catholic.

    http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/index.html

    And Tito–if you want to find out what the fruits of ecumenism have been, why not ask some of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite priests who have been doing mission work in Russia? I’m sure if you look around, you could get a good perspective on it. The efforts have not been fruitless, especially in building trust within countries that traditionally have been fiercely anti-Rome.

  • So “ecumenism” means being “nice” to others?

    I thought charity fell under that category, but I guess ecumenism is the new “charity”.

    So ecumenism means being nice to others, but not necessary being one Church.

    See the confusion?

  • “Unless you’re actually familiar with the “ecumenism movement” in which case you would know it has been drifting towards pluralism since the 70’s and recognize that this illicit movement had used UUS to further it’s cause, thus justifying it’s inclusion in the discussion.”

    Not true at all; it is quite apparent you are the one who has not studied the movement, but rather, strawmen about the movement itself; indeed, as I pointed out, UUS has criticized this idea of ecumenism, so it can’t be seen as supporting this notion at all. More importantly, if you look at the bi-lateral dialogues between Catholicism and others, you will note doctrine is significant, and the Orthodox, who have always been with the WWC, have always put forward as the difference of doctrine is a fundamental issue and cannot be dismissed for some “super-church” which ignores the distinctions. Sergius Bulgakov consistently insisted the ecumenical movement address Mary, btw.

  • e. ,

    Agreed; however, it has most assuredly not only harmed the Body of Christ, but it has done so to such remarkable extent so as to disfigure it almost rendering it to where you can hardly see the Catholicism of today as actually being “Catholic”.

    not everywhere, but certainly in many places.

  • JohnH:

    Stuff it and quite putting words in my mouth; regardless of the fact that even previous popes themselves opposed ecumenism and for good reason, too!

    Truly, the Smoke of Satan has already infiltrated the Church, as had even been prophesied by a well-respected pope; one need only see the many modern-day ‘Catholic’ churches, which are more like pagan sacrificial worship sites or your local protestant gathering place, as well as attend any number of ‘services’ to see its dispicable fruits which, thus, evince an overwhelming evidence for the center of such villainy.

  • So “ecumenism” means being “nice” to others?

    No. I think you are confused, or possibly being obtuse again. The efforts at ecumenism in Russia and elsewhere have opened doors for Catholics working in these countries.

  • JohnH,

    Again with ‘obtuse’.

    Show me the evidence that Michael Denton so often begs for that we are making inroads in Russia.

    I have heard our Russian Orthodox brothers complain about this, yet I don’t see any evidence of this.

    As of today, Rome and Moscow have no plans to reunite.

    Shoot, they don’t want us to walk within a hundred miles of the Russian border.

  • e.: I’m pretty weary of the whole “I’m more Catholic than Rome” schtick.

  • Tito: you can talk with the priests from here:

    http://www.vladmission.org/

    next time they are in the US. I know Fr. Dan is back and forth quite a bit. Or you can e-mail them for a chat (though the internet there is wonky).

  • JohnH,

    Thanks!

    I sincerely appreciate this because I love conversion stories and I would like to know how the whole “conversion of Russia” scene is playing out.

    Saint Padre Pio once said that the Russians will convert to Catholicism before the Americans, and they will teach us how to convert.

    Yes, I am being sincere, thank you!

  • You are welcome.

  • Henry K.,

    I have read those in the past, but I mostly stick to InterFax and Patriarchia for my Russian Orthodox news, and they haven’t been as friendly nor as optimistic:

    http://www.interfax-religion.com/

    http://www.patriarchia.ru/

    (use a translator for the second link)

  • fruits of ecumenism:

    ?

    Not sure what that has to do with ecumenism.

  • Henry Karlson Says Thursday, July 23, 2009 A.D.
    “Ecumenism” is a meaningless word? Tell that to the Vatican”.

    “This post is another fine representation of cafeteria Catholicism”.

    What is cafeteria-like about it is the avoidance of specifics. It is headline writing. All fog and fuss, no way to answer it.

  • e. Says Thursday, July 23, 2009 A.D. at 10:55 am
    “Henry Karlson,
    Even the text of infallible proclamations/documents does not necessarily make them impeccable”.

    Surely there is some confusion here about the meaning of “impeccable”.

    [NB: “not necessarily” is a meaningless weasel phrase].

  • Gabriel Austin:

    Are you much a fool as you are incapable of discerning what “necessarily” actually construes? Or are you so devoid of philosophic/theologic training so as to be wholly incapable of noting what is necessary and what is sufficient?

    Furthermore, the fact of the matter remains that just because something is, in fact, infallible does not actually render it “impeccable”; if that were indeed the case, that one is saying that any such infallible decree has been rendered remarkably perfect.

    For your information, neither professional Catholic theologians and even then Cardinal Ratzinger think so.

  • I doubt anyone here had trouble understanding what e. means in using the word “impeccable” even if it was not perfectly applied (which I don’t concede).

  • You guys are hilarious.

    Here, for your edification:

    [I]nfallibility has never been said to entail impeccability, the fact that some bishops and popes have been quite peccable indeed is irrelevant as an objection to the doctrine that they are infallible under certain conditions. By the same token, infallibility is not a prerogative that men enjoy as men. Since only God is infallible by nature, infallibility is a divine gift to the Church that nobody deserves or can attain by their own efforts. Such a gift is also negative rather than positive: it does not entail that the irreformable pronouncements of the Magisterium are divinely inspired, or opportune, or even particularly well-formulated; it entails only that the Magisterium will never bind the Church definitively to a statement that is false.

    There, I’m done with informing the ignorant.

  • e.,

    There, I’m done with informing the ignorant.

    I would advise you to not attend anymore Jesuit conferences if that is the case.

  • e. Says Thursday, July 23, 2009 A.D. at 2:41 pm
    “Gabriel Austin:
    Are you much a fool as you are incapable of discerning what “necessarily” actually construes? Or are you so devoid of philosophic/theologic training so as to be wholly incapable of noting what is necessary and what is sufficient?”

    I permit myself to reprove you with (Matthew 5:22) – “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

    “Furthermore, the fact of the matter remains that just because something is, in fact, infallible does not actually render it “impeccable”; if that were indeed the case, that one is saying that any such infallible decree has been rendered remarkably perfect”.

    Does not change the fact that you seem to have confused infallible with impeccable [which was nowhere discussed].

    Why do you hide behind an initial? Just curious.

    Interesting that in your informing [instructing?] the ignorant, you give a quotation but not a reference. Please do continue not to instruct [inform?] us.

  • I’m the one who has infallible confused with impeccable?

    Thus, says the man whose comments seemed to imply that an infallibile decree is actually flawless [impeccable].

    Now, go find a box somewhere upon which to recover your poise as you certainly need it!

  • Tito’s anti-Catholic recklessness continues and his co-bloggers remain silent.

  • Even those bloggers here with whom I greatly disagree, I would not accuse of either recklessness or anti-Catholicism.

  • e. Says Friday, July 24, 2009 A.D. at 2:44 pm
    “I’m the one who has infallible confused with impeccable?”

    Yes.

    “Thus, says the man whose comments seemed to imply that an infallibile decree is actually flawless [impeccable]”.

    “Seem to imply”. More weasel words. Have you a citation?

    “Now, go find a box somewhere upon which to recover your poise as you certainly need it!”

    Is this meant to make sense? Or is it merely an attempt to be offensive? If the latter, you need more practice. Read some Jonathan Swift.

  • Foxfier – I’m not accusing “the bloggers” of anything in the abstract. I am accusing Tito of specific actions here that are reckless and anti-Catholic.

  • I’m not accusing “the bloggers” of anything in the abstract.

    Incorrect; you accused them of allowing and– by their silence– promoting anti-Catholicism.

    That is both abstract– lacking as it is specific examples of “anti-Catholicism”– and an accusation.

  • Gabriel Austin:

    Are you that deficient in cognitive abilities? My comments were in fact making a distinction between the two.

    Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything more especially from a pompous trogoldyte who hails from the lesser races and believes adverbs are anathema.

  • Tito’s hatred of the Church’s teaching on ecumenism and his hatred of Archbishop Oscar Romero are evidence of his anti-Catholicism.

  • And speaking of so-called “weasel words”:

    “Does not change the fact that you seem to have confused infallible with impeccable [which was nowhere discussed].”

    By the way, you’re the one who has completely conflated the two since you actually are of the opinion that just because something happens to be infallible, it is indeed impeccable [flawless], or else you wouldn’t have taken issue with it to begin with (unless, of course, that’s just your way of demonstrating how you take being an arse to an art form!).

    So, go take your faux Catholicism elsewhere and stick your arrogance to where the sun don’t shine; I’ve had it with not only your pernicious mischaracterizations and condescending pettiness but, more especially, your constant pharisaic delectations, which are nothing more than a devious disguise to hide a clearly hideously fiendish nature underneath all that supposedly Christian exterior!

  • The only time Tito has written about Archbishop Romero was when he complemented you for praying to an uncanonized saint, and added prayers to Fr. Kolbe.
    (do a google site search, if you doubt)

    You seem to have a bit of a problem with facts.

  • Foxfier – You must have missed our conversation the other day on this blog about Romero.

  • Iafrate:

    At worst, Tito may be classified as careless or even thoughtless in some respects; however, to actually label the man “anti-Catholic” would seem to me to be wholly unjustified.

  • Michael,

    Yes Tito expressed belief in the accounts given to him by several Salvadoran friends indicating that Archbishop Romero had been hiding guns to help the guerrillas in that insanely long comment thread last week. No, I do not think it likely that his friends were right to believe that — though given their personal sufferings at the hands of the communist revolutionaries there I can see why Tito would.

    However, that in no way indicates “hatred” or anti-Catholicism, and while I won’t delete your original comment making that accusation (since it’s not my thread) I am going to stake out a line and tell you to stop it, or else I’ll delete any further comments from you along these lines.

    If you have something substantive to say, say it, but if you’re working on your extensive hate-list, we’re not interested.

  • Interesting to note that Iafrate is committing the very same kind of calumny that he was berating Tito for in a previous thread.

  • e. Says Monday, July 27, 2009 A.D. at 10:46 am

    [I must say I don’t know why I bother. Nonetheless to prevent the spread of error}.

    “you actually are of the opinion that just because something happens to be infallible, it is indeed impeccable [flawless]”.

    I would be curious for a citation citing my opinion on this confusion. The error is in the definition of impeccable as flawless. Perhaps in common usage. But in theology, impeccable means without sin.

    [Again, I ask myself why I bother].

  • And what, pray tell, was it in my comments that made you believe I was actually employing the term in its seeming officially accepted theological meaning?

    Especially since you yourself so much as admitted that its common usage (as well as according to Webster’s dic. and, not to mention, the fact that a certain Catholic Theologian himself also utilized the same term in the same sense I had applied thus in my own comments) is meant to contrue “flawless”, as I had indeed intended then.

    Regardless, that does not render (even slightly — and, if anything, your constant harangues only solifies support for my original position) my original statement wholly nugatory: the fact that just because something happens to be infallible, it doesn’t mean it’s actually impeccable!

    [Why do I even bother?]

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .