This is exactly what Andrew McCarthy described in his book, “Grand Jihad”.
Minnesota Muslim Pipeline
13 Monday May 2013
Posted in Andrew McCarthy, Islam, Jihad
Author Archives: Paul Bassett
The Death of Roman Catholic Tradition
11 Saturday May 2013
Posted in Charles Chaput, Garry Wills, Religious Freedom, Roman Catholicism
It is certainly no secret that that Catholic Church has taken it on the chin from Obamacare and the Health and Human Services Administration (HHS). The HHS has mandated that Roman Catholic employers must provide insurance which pays for abortifacient drugs for the people they employ. But the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, at least the modern Roman Catholic Church is.[i] That has caused the RCC in the United States to complain that its religious liberty has been infringed. And that infringement was the occasion for a recent address by the Most Reverend Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Philadelphia to a group in Greensburg, PA. What I found fascinating about the Archbishop’s address is that he while he admonishes his audience to remain true to their Catholic heritage he does so on a Protestant foundation. In other words, he had to abandon Catholic teaching and Tradition on the issue of religious liberty and build his case on the work of the Protestant Founders of America.
His Excellency encouraged his audience not to “dilute our zeal as Catholics” and reminded them that they cannot “achieve good ends with impure means”.[ii] He reminded his hearers of his work on the United States Commission on International Freedom which taught him “importance of religious liberty both abroad and in our own country.” The Archbishop then stated that the (charitable) work of the Catholic Church must be ordered by certain principles, the first of which is this:
First, all Catholic social work should be faithful to the mission and structures of the local diocese, with special respect for the role of the bishop. It should be true to Scripture, Church teaching and the Code of Canon Law.[iii]
And that this liberty to practice one’s own religion is one of the “cornerstones of the American experience.” The Archbishop then cites “James Madison, John Adams, Charles Carroll, John Jay, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson” as examples of men who shared his view on religious liberty. It is interesting to me that all of these men, with the exception of Charles Carroll were Protestants.
But if we are to take the Archbishop’s admonition to remain “true” to “Church teaching” we must ask what was the Catholic Church’s teaching during the period of America’s founding down to modern times. And that is where things become very interesting because the Roman Church has historically been against the very same “religious liberty” that the Archbishop now sees as so important to his cause.
Official “Church Teaching” on Religious Liberty: 1776-1958
Because the Archbishop ties his understanding of religious liberty to America in the eighteenth century it seems only fair that we examine what the Roman Church taught during the period. At the time of the American Revolution of 1776 and through the period where the U.S. Constitution was drafted, ratified and implemented, the pope of Rome was Pius VI. Here is an example of Pius VI’s idea of “religious liberty” in the Papal States over which he presided:
…at the time of Pius VI came to St. Peter’s throne in 1775 and issued his order reinstating all the old restrictions, Jews lived in eight ghettoes, locked in each night behind high walls and heavy gates. Everyone was able to tell who was a Jew, because, in another sixteenth-century papal provision reiterated in the 1775 edict, Jews were required to wear a special badge on their clothes…Jews were not allowed to keep shops or warehouses outside the ghetto and their social isolation was to be strictly enforced.[iv]
If you were a Jew living in Rome at the time of the American Revolution, “religious liberty” meant being imprisoned, giving up your possessions and being harassed by the Catholic Church.
The pontificate of the next pope, Pius VII was marked by the struggle with Napoleon. It is interesting that Napoleon freed the Jews imprisoned by the Catholic Church after he invaded Rome at the beginning of the 19th century. Unfortunately the Jews were re-imprisoned by the next pope, Leo XII in 1826. One notable Catholic historian describes Leo this way:
Leo XII’s pontificate was an extremely conservative one: he condemned religious toleration, reinforced the Index of Forbidden Books and the Holy Office (formerly the Inquisition), reestablished the feudal aristocracy in the Papal States, and confined the Jews once again to ghettos.[v]
Leo was followed by Pius VIII who lasted only twenty months who was in turn followed by Gregory XVI. And Gregory was no fan of “religious liberty”. Fr. McBrien once again:
Gregory XVI was as rigid in dealing with theological issues as he was in dealing with political ones. In his encyclical “Mirari vos” (August 15, 1832)…he denounced the concepts of freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, and separation of Church and state, particularly the liberal views associate with the French priest Félicité Robert de Lamennais…(Lamennais favored religious liberty and the separation of Church and state….[vi]
The last pope of the 19th century was Pius IX. Pius was famous for, among other things, his Syllabus of Errors. That document listed a variety of doctrines or viewpoints that, if applied to the Roman Catholic Church would be considered errors. And religious liberty would be included in that list of errors. Here is the way Pius IX phrased it:
That in the present day, it is no longer necessary that the Catholic Church be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship: whence it has been wisely provided by the law, in some countries nominally Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the free exercise of their own worship…That the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.[vii]
The next pope was Leo XIII. And the irony of Leo’s papacy in light of Archbishop Chaput’s presentation is that Leo disliked the American system so vehemently that he created the heresy of “Americanism”! In his encyclical “Longiqua Oceani” the pope put the matter this way:
…it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.[viii]
You see, according to the Pope, the type of system the Archbishop thinks is fundamental to defend the religious liberty of Catholics is actually heretical. If the Archbishop were true to his own dictate to remain true to “Church teaching” he would give up this talk of liberty.
And the next pontiff – the “pastoral” Pius X – was no different. It seems that this pope was so set against “religious liberty” that he refused to see the American President Teddy Roosevelt simply because the President was scheduled to speak at a Methodist Church in Rome. I have a hard time finding the “liberty” in that story, don’t you?
Benedict XV’s pontificate seems to have been preoccupied with internecine quarrels as well as with the events of the First World War. But his successor, Pius XI renewed Rome’s march against religious liberty with the encyclical “Martalium animos” which “forbade any Catholic involvement in ecumenical conferences.”[ix]
The last pope that I will mention brings us past the mid-point of the twentieth century; Pius XII. And I have to note him with a truly great sense of irony. You see, Pius XII instigated a “persecution” of leading Catholic scholars of the day including Henri de Lubac, who Archbishop Chaput quotes from to begin his speech! And while it is true that John Paul II later raised de Lubac to the episcopate, the fact remains that he was first an example of the sort of religious intolerance which is the true legacy of Rome.
Conclusion:
The Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is to deny religious liberty. That case has been made by a review of centuries of official Catholic documents promulgated by every pope from America’s founding until the mid-twentieth century. It is beyond question that Rome’s official position is one in opposition to “liberty”. And that the American system of which Archbishop Chaput thinks is so instructive has actually been declared a heresy by Rome.
In order for this not to be true, it will be necessary for Roman Catholics to show where, when and by whom these many papal pronouncements have been rescinded, reformed or replaced. A feat that cannot be accomplished given the nature of papal writings.
Therefore we must conclude that either the Tradition of Rome is dead or that the venerable Archbishop of Philadelphia is a heretic. As harsh as that may sound, what other choice is there?
Soli Deo Gloria.
[i] It is an interesting fact of history that the Roman Catholic Church has not been opposed to abortion until recent times. You can read more about that here .
[ii] It seems to this writer that God Himself has achieved good ends almost entirely through “impure means” if the Scriptures are any testimony. The only exception I can recall are the ends that God achieved through Christ who is, of course, pure.
[iv] Kertzer, David I. The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. Pgs. 28-29.
[v] McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997. Page 333.
[vi] Ibid. p. 338
[viii] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_06011895_longinqua_en.html
[ix] McBrien, p. 360.
New Pope may end priestly celibacy
25 Thursday Apr 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
A good friend of mine gave me a print copy of this article whose authors think the new pope may end priestly celibacy. Apparently, Pope Francis was supportive of a woman who was romantically involved with a bishop and was eventually married to him.
That possibility will certainly cause the far-right Catholic epologists some considerable heartburn.
Soli Deo Gloria
A Further Example for my friend, Joseph Richardson
20 Saturday Apr 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
In my ongoing interaction with my friend, Joseph, it is very clear that Joseph doesn’t want to believe what I say that the Catholic Church actually teaches with regard to the use of Holy Scripture. Fair enough. So I thought I would provide some further historical evidence to help us in our discussion.
It is well to remember Joseph’s recent question to me in order to understand his concern:
What makes Protestants able to offer their own interpretations of Scripture, and Catholics unable?
I explained earlier that the answer to that question is Rome itself, specifically in the canons and decrees of the Councils of Trent and both Vatican Councils as well as the dogmatic Creed of Pope St. Pius IV. That is the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
But just to augment that further, I would like to focus some attention on another dogmatic Catholic document, “PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Study of Holy Scripture.”[i] This is important for several reasons and the most important for our purposes is that this encyclical, like all others, is “irreformable”. That means that Catholics must believe it as if it were written today. Additionally, PD accurately cites Catholic Tradition to that point and provides the groundwork for the later second Vatican council.
So let’s see what Pope Leo XIII had to say about Catholics and Bible study:
1. “For the language of the Bible is employed to express, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, many things which are beyond the power and scope of the reason of man…”[ii]
This should be helpful in understanding why it is that Catholics cannot rely on their own “reason”.
2. “Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into their interior without a guide…”[iii]
This aligns clearly with what we saw earlier about the Magisterium being the “sole” (only) interpreter of Scripture. Even where Catholics are permitted to engage in the study of Scripture they must always adhere to the “true sense” which only the Magisterium can pronounce.
And then Leo goes on to lay out Catholic Tradition further….
3. “His [Irenaeus’] teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this – that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”
Here we clearly see the use of the idea of the “true sense” of Scripture which Leo traces back to Irenaeus and which we have seen was codified at Trent. And it must be remembered that Trent put two qualifications on this “true sense”: it must be officially pronounced by the Magisterium and it must be consonant with Tradition. What else is clear is that “no one” may interpret Scripture against that sense, that is, in any other way.
The noted Catholic historian Dr. Garry Wills writes,
A further implication of Leo’s position is that the church, as the guardian of the historical tradition, holds a monopoly on the relevant evidence: [quoting from Providentissimus Deus] “The uncontaminated sense of Holy Scripture cannot be discovered at all [neutiquam] without the church. And laypersons cannot study scripture on their own since, “no one can penetrate its ambiguities without moral guidance [aliquo vitae duce].[iv]
Dr. Wills, it should be noted, was educated in a Jesuit seminary. He went on to earn one of his two Masters degrees at Xavier University in Cincinnati which is also a fine Jesuit institution.
What Happens when Catholics rely on Tradition and dispense with Reason
Shortly after Leo penned PD, he established the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The PBC’s function was to “police Catholic thought on the Bible, threatening and punishing any exegetes who departed from its directives.” In effect, Leo was using the PBC to enforce the “true sense” interpretation of Scripture that the Roman Catholics had reserved to the Magisterium for the last 500 years. So how did that work out? Not so well, it seems.
Dr. Wills, once more:
The pope did his most lasting damage to Bible scholarship when he set up the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1902, which for decades would police Catholic thought on the Bible, threatening and punishing any exegetes who departed from its directives. These directives included, in the decades to come, that Catholic priests must be taught in their seminaries that the first five books were written personally by Moses, that Eve was literally created from Adam’s rib, and that the Beloved Disciple wrote the fourth gospel. Catholic professors, thus fettered, became a laughingstock in the world of biblical scholarship.[v]
This incident shows two things that are important for my interaction with Joseph. First, that the PBC under the direction of five popes guided Catholics away from using reason. Second, it shows that the final authority for interpreting the Scriptures is only the Magisterium – even when it contradicts reason.
Soli Deo Gloria
[i] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Wills, Garry. Why I am a Catholic. New York. Houghton Mifflin Company: 2002. P. 202
[v] Ibid.
How Catholics are supposed to interpret the Scriptures.
14 Sunday Apr 2013
Posted in Hermeneutics, Matthew 16, Roman Catholicism, Trent
In a recent exchange I had with Joseph Richardson (which can be found here ) I was surprised to learn that Joseph was unaware of the rules the Catholic Church maintains about the proper use of the Scriptures. My point to Joseph then was that he was using Scriptures like a Protestant. He was surprised by that comment and responded this way:
First: What makes you say, “Roman Catholics are not allowed to offer their own interpretations of Scripture”? Is being Catholic somehow a handicap to my powers of reasoning? What makes Protestants able to offer their own interpretations of Scripture, and Catholics unable? Because this is in fact my own interpretation, based in a careful study of the Greek, of the whole of Scripture, not just the passage you are drawing attention to, and of the teachings of the Fathers.
So to make the case clear how Catholics are bound to use the Scriptures and to answer Joseph’s questions I will explain the Catholic requirements for using the Scriptures. This explanation will come exclusively from Catholic sources and are noted for easy verification. I would like to point out at the beginning that all of the sources used in the post are “dogmatic” for Catholics. That means that the information we will explore is not “optional” for Catholics to believe; it is required.
The first thing we have to do is discover the Roman Catholic understanding of divine revelation. That is important because Rome takes a different view than the rest of Christianity and because Rome binds the consciences of her members to that view. That is to say, to be a Roman Catholic means that you affirm this view, without reservation. The second thing we have to do is understand the role of the Magisterium in the interpretation of the Scriptures for the Catholic faithful: what is its role and what are Catholics required to believe. Finally, we will outline how Catholics are, based on this information, supposed to interpret the Bible.
Roman Catholic Revelation – the three legged stool.
Roman Catholicism has a unique doctrine of divine revelation. And the Tradition of Roman Catholicism – dating at least back to the Council of Trent – is that divine revelation to a Catholic comes via three inextricably interconnected sources: Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Revelation cannot be derived from the Scriptures alone (because that is a Protestant claim) or from Tradition alone, or from the Magisterium alone.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts the matter this way:
95 It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.[i]
All three elements must be in play when Catholics use the Scripture. None of the three parts – Tradition, Scripture or Magisterium – is sufficient to stand on its own. So Catholics are not free to use only Scripture to make whatever case they are attempting.
And the Catechism clarifies this even further:
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.[ii]
Roman Catholics who use Scripture alone to make their case are not following the Catholic understanding of divine revelation. They are acting like Protestants.
The Magisterium – the sole, official interpreter of Scripture.
You may remember that Joseph asked me, “What makes you say, “Roman Catholics are not allowed to offer their own interpretations of Scripture”? And the answer is Rome.
The brief historical note is that offering one’s own interpretation of Scripture was the Roman Catholic caricature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. At the time of the Reformation Rome spoke out vociferously against the idea of “private interpretation” even going so far as to place anyone so doing under legal sanction. As a response to their perception of this rampant “private interpretation” the Fathers at the Council of Trent declared thusly:
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall … presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold…[iii]
So Joseph unwittingly has become, according to Trent, a “petulant spirit” because he has relied on his own study and not the “true sense” of the Scriptures as is required by Rome. Or, he has not shown that his interpretation lines up with Rome’s official interpretation.
How do we know that Rome has the “true sense” of the Scripture? Because she has the Magisterium and it is to the Magisterium – alone – to provide the authentic interpretation of Scripture.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.[iv]
Vatican II affirms in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum:
For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God[v].
In the context of Roman Catholicism, it is very clear that the Magisterium is entrusted “solely” with interpreting the Scriptures.
The Catholic Dogma Applied
We have seen so far that Roman Catholics must follow the dogmatic pronouncements of their denomination when interpreting the Scriptures. This means that they must do so in a manner that shows they are resting on all three “legs” of the Catholic paradigm. So when Joseph Richardson brings out a verse like Matthew 16:18 and, based on his own careful study, opines that this verse is a support for the papacy he is ignoring the other two-thirds of Catholic method.
What Joseph – and other Catholics must do – is show that his understanding of this verse comports with the “true sense” which the Magisterium holds today, and which the Tradition of the church has “always held”. Then – and only then – can Joseph proclaim publicly what Matthew 16:18 means. But simply proclaiming the verse without Magisterial approbation and without maintaining Tradition is decidedly un-Catholic. That is why I told Joseph he was using Scripture like a Protestant.
In Conclusion.
In response to the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically defined God’s revelation to His church as consisting of Tradition, the Magisterium and Sacred Scripture. This clearly delineated Rome from the Reformers who asserted the sufficiency of Scripture. A further response was to place the job of official Scriptural interpretation in the hands of the Magisterium whose task was to maintain consistency in its interpretations with the Tradition of the church.
Therefore any Roman Catholic must use the entire “three legged stool” in his argument. He cannot rely on Scripture alone without being accused of using Protestant methods. He must prove from Tradition, the Magisterium and the Scriptures that the understanding he is advancing is that “true sense” of Scripture that Rome says it “has held and holds”.
In other words, if Rome is going to construct a three-legged stool, the least they should do is sit on it.
Soli Deo Gloria
[i] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM
[ii] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM
[iii] DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS; Trent IV
[iv] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PN.HTM
[v] (DEI VERBUM, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Second Vatican Council. CHAPTER III; Sacred Scripture, Its Inspiration and Divine Interpretation. http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2revel.htm
Comments for my friend, Joseph Richardson
01 Monday Apr 2013
Posted in Hermeneutics, Matthew 16, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Trent
Joseph Richardson who owns The Lonely Pilgrim stopped by last Sunday and asked for some comments on his post, “A Biblical Argument for the Authority of the Papacy”. Judging from this post and a few others I read Joseph is a devout Roman Catholic who is taken with the defense of his denomination. And his title indicates that he believes the Bible gives the Pope his authority.
Joseph begins with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a discussion about Christ as head of the church and quickly proceeds to the Scriptures by stating,
I think an honest reading of Scripture requires one to acknowledge that Jesus did delegate His authority, first to the Twelve Apostles as a group and then to Peter in particular.
Thereafter Joseph relies on the usual Scriptural suspects – Matthew 16:16-18, John 20:21-23, etc. – all the while offering his take on them. And that gives rise to my first comment.
Roman Catholics are not allowed to offer their own interpretations of Scripture.
One of the cardinal points of difference between Rome and Protestants at the time of the Reformation was how one was to interpret the Scriptures. The Protestants held that God worked in both the faithful preaching of the Word and in its faithful reception (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:1). Rome objected. She felt that this led to “unbridled spirits” interpreting Scriptures in a multitude of possibly conflicting and incorrect ways. So Rome placed this dogma on all faithful Roman Catholics:
Furthermore, in order to check unbridled spirits, it decrees, that no one, relying on his own judgment, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.[i]
So any interpretation of Scripture used by a Roman Catholic must conform to that “sense which holy mother Church…has held and holds” and they must not be contradictory to the “unanimous teaching of the Fathers.”
But it cannot be shown that what Rome holds today she has always held with regard to any of the Scriptures Joseph cited. And, in fact, it can be shown that the Roman Church has varied its interpretation of Matthew 16:18 so widely that it is impossible to tell what she “has held and holds” with regard to that key verse. So where that leaves us is that Joseph is acting like a Protestant in interpreting the Scriptures to support Roman doctrines. I don’t think that was his intent.
Joseph ends his post with a claim that a “literal interpretation” of Scriptures is friendly to Rome:
“Evidently, we Catholics interpret Scripture more literally and realistically than you, and accept it more readily for what it actually says in its plainest sense.” And that leads to my second and final observation:
A Literal Reading of Scripture is not friendly to Rome.
A few weeks ago, I was made aware of a Presbyterian minister who had converted to Rome. Although I did not listen to the entirety of his interview on EWTN, I do recall that one of his motivations was the “literal meaning” of the Bible and in his case the 6th chapter of John and his understanding of that chapter’s relevance to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. (It seems very odd to me that someone would use the most allegorical of the Gospels as the basis for a literal interpretation but that is another matter.) My point is that Catholics take a “pick-and-choose” approach to their literal interpretations.
Consider Matthew 16. Verse 18 is the seminal verse most commonly used in support of Rome’s authority. But verse 23 – just 5 short verses later – has Christ Himself calling Peter “Satan”. Is Rome prepared to interpret that verse literally?
And following on to Matthew 16, the Old Testament has dozens of passages that refer to the “Rock” and it is always God, not a man. One example is 2 Samuel 22:32, “For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?” And given that Jesus affirms everything in the Old Testament in this same Gospel (see Matthew 5:17-21) it is highly problematic that a “literal” reading of Scripture means Peter is the Rock of 16:18.
And just a few chapters later, as Christ is preparing His disciples for their mission after His departure He specifically states, “Let no man call you Father.” (Matthew 23:9). And yet, Rome has more than 400,000 “Fathers” who claim to follow Christ. And still more to the point, the Scriptures are very clear that no one is “holy” (Romans 3:10, Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20). And yet Rome calls the pope, “Holy Father.”
So a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is not friendly to Rome’s doctrines.
I am very grateful for the chance to interact with Joseph’s material and thank him for the invitation. I am even more grateful for his interest in the Scriptures, for “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (Romans 10:17).
Soli Deo Gloria.
[i] Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, April 8, 1546. See Schroeder, H.J., O.P. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent; English Translation. Charlotte, N.C. Tan Books, 1978. p. 19. Nihil Obstat (1978 edition): Fr. Humbertus Kane, O.P. Fr. Alexius Driscoll, O.P. Imprimi Potest (1978 edition): Fr. Petrus O’Brien, O.P. Prior Provincialis. Nihil Obstat (1941): A. A. Esswein, Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur (1941): Archbishop John J. Glennon.
What argument would be left for remaining Catholic?
23 Saturday Mar 2013
Posted in Abortion, Pat Buchanan, Roman Catholicism, Trent
I have generally been a fan of Pat Buchanan for quite some time. And I must confess to have voted for him in the Republican primaries back in the ‘90’s. He seems to me to be a man of principle and a man who is willing to stand up for those principles. Which is why I found this question which Pat asks in a recent Human Events article so interesting.
In that piece Pat is examining the stance of the new pope on several issues: redistribution of wealth, “social issues”, etc. And Pat gives high marks to the new pope in these regards. Pat pronounces that Pope Francis “adheres to orthodox teaching” which is important because, “To be Catholic is to be orthodox.”
But what, really, is Catholic orthodoxy?
Pat gives us his idea by antithesis:
…let us presume the impossible — that the Church should suddenly allow the ordination of [sic] woman, and decree that abortions in the first month of pregnancy are now licit, and that homosexual unions, if for life, will henceforth be recognized and blessed. This would require the Church to admit that for 2,000 years it had been in error on matters of faith and morals, and hence is not infallible.
But we have shown here that the Church of Rome has historically held a contrary position on abortion. In that article, we noted that St. Jerome had no problem with “abortions in the first month of pregnancy” nor did Aquinas nor did Pope Innocent III nor did the very Council of Trent! Think of that, friends. What Pat Buchanan decries as heterodox was actually Catholic orthodoxy for at least fifteen hundred years!
My point then is not so much that the Roman Catholic Church was wrong before Trent or that it has been wrong after it. But rather that it was necessarily wrong during at least one of those periods. And according to Mr. Buchanan that “requires” Rome to admit that “it had been in error on matters of faith and morals, and hence is not infallible.”
Since we have objective, verifiable historic proof that Rome is not, indeed, infallible Buchanan’s question stands: What argument would be left for remaining Catholic?
I can’t think of one.
Soli Deo Gloria.
What if Matthew 16 had not a thing to do with Rome?
14 Thursday Mar 2013
Posted in Matthew 16, Papacy, Raymond Brown, Roman Catholicism
These past two weeks have witnessed the resignation of one pope and the election of another. The former event is notable because of its rarity and the second because it is a first – the first pope to be elected from the Americas.
And one cannot surf the web or watch the news without hearing someone say of Rome that it is “Christ’s church built upon Peter”, or some such thing. And as predictably as the sun rises in the east, Roman Catholics will point to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 16 verse 18, for justification of their papal claims: “For you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18 is surely the most badly abused of all biblical proof texts!)
Leaving aside the fact that this interpretation creates disharmony in the Godhead by ignoring the Old Testament and that it is precluded to Catholics by the Council of Trent and the Creed of Pope St. Pius IV, the more interesting question at the moment is, “What if Matthew was not writing about Rome at all?” That is the question that seems to undergird an examination by the late Roman Catholic scholar, Fr. Raymond Brown.
Matthew 16:18-19 has given rise to an endless flood of literature because of its use in later church doctrine and polemics. At the same time, biblical scholars have often focused on the question of pre-Matthean tradition. All too often the problematic of the evangelist in his own time and place…is overlooked. Matthew, writing to meet the problems of a church in Syrian Antioch around A.D. 85, is certainly not concerned with the problem of whether a single-bishop in Rome is the successor of Simon Peter especially since both Rome and Antioch around 85 do not seem to have known the single-bishop structure.[i](Emphasis added.)
Matthew was writing with the church at Antioch in mind; not the church at Rome. And neither apostolic church had a single bishop! If Peter wasn’t the bishop, what was he? Brown continues:
Matthew is presenting Peter as the chief of Rabbi of the universal church, with power to make “halakic” decisions (i.e. decisions on conduct) in the light of the teaching of Jesus. As Bornkamm points out…the main thrust of 16:18-19 is Peter’s teaching authority, his power to declare acts licit or illicit according to Jesus’ teaching. Furthermore, this power extends to the whole of “my church,” the whole church Jesus will build on Peter, not just some local assembly.[ii] (Emphasis added.)
So with all of the “pope talk” that will be with us for the foreseeable future, when you hear someone cite Matthew’s Gospel in support of the new man in the Vatican, you might ask him why St. Matthew had no idea why he should be head of Christ’s church? Or what a Gospel, written under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit to the church at Antioch has to do at all with Rome? Or why the successor of Peter, who may have been given the rabbinical duties of teaching, claims to have a “primacy of jurisdiction” over the church?
Soli Deo Gloria.
On Faith, Freedom and Roman Catholic History
04 Monday Mar 2013
Posted in Caste system, Darryl Hart, Garry Wills, Roman Catholicism
Dr. Darryl Hart has posted a thought provoking piece on the acquiescence of Roman Catholic ecclesiology to “Americanism” here. He cites the work of the 19th century Presbyterian minister, Lyman Beecher who foretold that the intermingling of Roman Catholics with the then predominant Protestant culture of America would “wear away” the caste system of Romanism. And the evidence for that “wearing away” is another piece written by a Roman Catholic writer Joseph Pearce entitled Faith and Freedom.
Pearce writes,
One of the truths of Christendom which lays the very foundations of freedom is the Christian insistence on the mystical equality of all people in the eyes of God and the insistence on the dignity of the human person that follows logically, inexorably and inescapably from such an insistence.
And Dr. Hart notes that this line if thinking is wholly remarkable because, “it is precisely the one that Protestants used to use against Roman Catholics.” But why? Because this “mystical equality of all people” is an innovation in 20th century Catholic anthropology. The Roman Church has historically been built on a caste system. So it was the Protestants who had to call Rome back to the doctrine which Mr. Pearce finds so dear.
The most blatant evidence for this caste system is the ruthless treatment that Jews received at the hands of the Roman Church. Professor David Kertzer describes the extent of this abomination:
Where the popes acted as temporal rulers, as they did in the Papal States until the States’ absorption into a unified Italy over the period 1859-70, discrimination against Jews was public policy…The popes and the Vatican worked hard to keep Jews in their subservient place…and they did all this according to canon law and the centuries-old belief that in doing so they were upholding the most basic tenets of Christianity. [i]
So Pearce’s “mystical equality of all people” is historical amnesia within the context of the Roman Church.
But “equality”, mystical or otherwise, is belied by even a cursory examination of papal documents with regard to people “inside” the Catholic Church. We can see this very clearly from the writings of Pope Leo XIII to the American church in 1895:
Now if, on the one hand, the increased riches and resources of your cities are justly attributed to the talents and active industry of the American people, on the other hand, the prosperous condition of Catholicity must be ascribed, first indeed, to the virtue, the ability, and the prudence of the bishops and clergy; but in so slight measure also, to the faith and generosity of the Catholic laity. Thus, while the different classes exerted their best energies, you were enabled to erect unnumbered religious and useful institutions, sacred edifices, schools for the instruction of youth, colleges for the higher branches, homes for the poor, hospitals for the sick, and convents and monasteries. (bold added).[ii]
You see, credit for “prosperous Catholicity” is to be given first to the clergy and only in “slight measure” to the laity. Leo’s language of “different classes” of Catholics negates any legitimate, historical claim by Rome to equality.
Lastly, Dr. Hart notes that Rome’s assimilation into “Americanism” was preceded by the Protestant assimilation. But we should note that “Americanism” to Catholics must carry a special meaning. You see, the very same Leo XIII mentioned earlier declared “Americanism” to be a heresy. According to one Catholic scholar, Leo XIII
…invented a phantom heresy, providing a model for the heresy-hunting that would reach a fever pitch under his successor. To the long list of heresies bravely resisted by the church – Docetism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Patripassionism, and so on – a new one was added in 1899, sounding very strange in this exotic company: Americanism. It is a heresy without named heretics, one that no one was aware of professing. It can be explained only by the Vatican’s long war on democracy, which made many cardinals in Rome very uneasy about a pluralist and secularist society like that of America.[iii]
While it may be true, as Mr. Pearce writes that, “One of the truths of Christendom …is the Christian insistence on the mystical equality of all people in the eyes of God”it is also true that that “truth” is not historically evident in the Roman Church. Rather the Nietzschean “ ṻber/unter menschen” is more clearly visible within the walls of the Vatican.
Which is why we must rejoice that Lyman Beecher is a prophet.
Soli Deo Gloria.
[i] Kertzer, David I. The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. P. 11
[ii] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_06011895_longinqua_en.html
[iii] Wills, Garry. Why I am a Catholic. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2002. Pgs. 202-203.
Scriptures, the Mass and the RC IP
21 Thursday Feb 2013
Posted in Bryan Cross, C2C IP, Reformation, Roman Catholicism, Trent, Unity
The concept of the Roman Catholic Interpretive Paradigm has intrigued me. If true, it would solve the age old epistemological dilemma of “How do you know?” and “How do you know that you know?” Such certainty might be a welcome relief in a world filled with uncertainty.
But the last time we were together we observed how the greater the Magisterial influence the less likely is Scripture to be present. We noted that in the Papal States – that government completely and directly under the control of the Magisterium – bibles were regularly and ceremonially burned and the mere mention of a biblical story was cause for the banishment of a play. We also discovered that no bibles were printed in the vernacular of the Papal States for something more than 200 years. And this against a background of a wider Catholic church whose other segments – like the northern European Catholic churches – relied on the Bible for their very survival. Apparently the great dioceses of Cologne, Mainz, Frankfurt, etc. were not aware of a magisterial IP.
Against this backdrop, a good Roman Catholic might well respond that our analysis, while correct, is not complete. You see, the Catholics have institutionalized Scripture reading at the Mass. And our Roman Catholic friend would be quite right. For those of you not familiar, the Catholic Mass has three readings: a First and Second Reading and then a reading from the Gospels. In between the First and Second one of the Psalms is usually sung or spoken in a responsive manner (at least part of one). So the Scriptures are built into the normal practice of the Catholic religion. That’s true.
In fact, that was a practice codified very early on by Rome. In order to compensate for the lack of education of parish priests, Rome assembled and disseminated a playbook for the Mass – the Roman Missal. The Missal contains the Scripture readings, prayers and other rituals to be performed based on the day of the year and the type of celebration. The Missal was designed to repeat after a three year cycle and I believe that it was, for the time, a very good thing.
But here’s the question. How do you get through the 73 books of the (Catholic) canon in what amounts to 156 Sundays? If you were to get through it all, you would have to cover approximately one half of each Biblical book each Sunday. While that might not be problematic for 1st, 2nd or 3rd John or Jude, it would be a huge problem for Genesis or Isaiah, to take two examples.
So what was Rome’s solution? Although it may sound harsh it is nonetheless true that the Magisterial solution was to eliminate the Old Testament.
Fr. Felix Just, S J, PhD, has done extensive research on the Scripture readings used in the Missals both before and after Vatican II. Here is his analysis:
At the time after Trent the Roman Missal excluded nearly all of the Old Testament. And while that has improved post-Vatican II, today’s Roman Catholic is exposed to only 13.5% of the Old Testament (excluding what Psalms are sung responsively) when s/he attends Mass. (How Rome can evade the charge of institutionalized Marcionism is worth pondering.)
Here is Fr. Just’s analysis of the use of the New Testament:
(Source: http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm)
While the NT is certainly represented more fully than the OT, it is easy to see that today’s Roman Catholic still misses nearly 30% of it, if their only exposure is at the Mass.
Conclusion:
It is entirely unclear how the “Interpretive Paradigm” offered by C2C could have operated at all in the period between Trent and Vatican II. And the reason for that is clear. As we have seen earlier, the Roman Church programmatically eliminated printed bibles from personal possession while it ceremonially eliminated 99% of the OT and 83% of the NT from its corporate worship. How could any good Catholic have been expected to ask a question which might have been interpreted by the Magisterium when they had not the basic Scriptures about which to ask?
I am becoming more convinced as we go that this new “IP” from our friends at C2C is simply an anachronism.
Soli Deo Goria
anactofmind 