Fr. Powell had an interesting post last week called On the Habits and Spirit of Dissent. He mentions:
Habitually, dissent looks like…
…anger: a consuming frustration, disappointment, rage toward the Truth
… hatred: a self-defining loathing for the apostolic faith
… willful ignorance: a refusal to learn, a refusal to be disciplined (to be a student)
… pride: an utter failure to be humble in the face 2,000 years of teaching
… arrogance: an expression of pride that manifests as dismissiveness of authority
… entitlement: an obsessive assertion of prerogative/privilege over service
… idolatry: the raising up of Novelty and Trendiness as final ends
… rebelliousness: revolting against legitimate authority in favor of private choice
And then:
4. Failure of humility, triumph of pride. The Habit and Spirit of Dissent is fundamentally about the failure to understand and accept the necessity of authority in defining and teaching the faith. Pride tells us that we are basically independent creatures, freed from any and all obligation, beholding to none (including and especially God!). Humility in teaching the faith means that we begin my assuming the authenticity of the witness we’ve received. In other words, we start this whole project by trusting the Holy Spirit to do what He said He would do: to guide His church, to keep Her free from error though the apostolic tradition. The Habit and Spirit of Dissent begins by assuming that the apostolic tradition as received is deeply flawed, in desperate need of repair, and that he/she is the One to accomplish this healing through radical reformation and revolution. The model for this reformation/revolution is almost always secular in origin: ecclesial democracy, spiritualized psychotherapy, fetishization of various secular or non-Christian philosophies (Marxism, feminism, Eastern thought), ad. nau. Typical prideful statement about an authoritative text: “Most Catholic theologians disagree with Dogma X. The latest research indicates that Dogma X is an outdated assertion of ___________ [insert Current Dissenter Object of Derision, e.g. papal authority, institutional identity, gender domination, etc.].”
Teaching the faith means teaching with the mind of the Church. On this subject, the constitutions of the Order of Preachers reads: “In all things the brethren should think with the Church and exhibit allegiance to the varied exercise of the Magisterium to which is entrusted the authentic interpretation of the word of God. Furthermore, faithful to the Order’s mission, they should always be prepared to provide with special dedication cooperative service to the Magisterium in fulfilling their doctrinal obligations” (LCO III.1.80).
One of my favorite stories is of Dietrich von Hildebrand when he was seeking instruction to come into the faith. This was before RCIA and he was receiving private instruction from a priest. He wanted to go ahead and enter the Church but he did not understand the Church’s teaching on contraception and just couldn’t accept the arguments against it. The priest told him he would not bring him into the Church unless he fully accepted all that the Church teaches. He immediately replied that he believed the Church was true and thus would accept the teaching on contraception. Of course later on he became a great champion of the defense of this teaching. He both realized that the Church was true and had the humility to accept its teaching.
Humility is not looking in the face of two millennia of consistent Church teaching and then saying excuse me, I have something to teach you. Now no one comes into the Church understanding all of what the Church teaches, unless they have been given infused knowledge. The question though is whether you feel yourself in the role of student or teacher when it comes to the Church. It seems to me that the reason to become Catholic is not because you agree with doctrines A, B, C thru Z; but that you believe that what the Church teaches is true and has the authority to teach that these doctrines as true. As St. Augustine said, "I would not believe the Gospels if it were not for the Church." Too many have this inverted or they try to project societal understanding especially in regards to sexual morality as the gospel that the Church must accept.
This is the part of dissenting ecclesiology that I just can’t understand since it in effect says that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit has been teaching error in significant ways since the beginning. If we can’t accept the teachings on for example contraception and homosexuality, how can we accept what books even belong in the Bible without doubt. Flannery O’Connor famously said ‘If It’s a Symbol, the Hell with It’ The same goes for the Church. If the Church can teach error when it comes to faith and morals then it isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit. If you truly believe that this is the case you should look for one that is or start your own.
Thinking with the mind of the Church is not something easily conducive in our culture where individualism reigns supreme. Too often we want to be a ventriloquist and throw our voices to make it seem that it is the Church speaking when it is only ourselves. St. Peter when it came to understanding the Eucharist replied to Jesus when asked if he would leave also "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." If we start from the proposition that what Jesus teaches through his Church is true we can then stand with St. Peter in his confusion and humbly struggle to the best of our abilities to understand what is taught.
33 comments
Believe me, Jeff, I’ve thought about this problem a lot, as you obviously have as well. My question isn’t so much, to the dissenters “why do you teach and preach wrong?” But to the people, “Why do you listen to utter crappola? How do you sit still for this?”
And I think that the answer is that not everybody THINKS. A lot of this is the current state of the educational system, etc. But I suspect that part of it is that not everybody was BORN THINKING. You were, Fr. Powell was, I was, along with pretty much all of the Dominicans I know (many), but most people weren’t.
I mean especially thinking from principles. Most people think from examples. So if they know some nice lesbian couple, or what-have-you, it easily changes their minds about Church teaching.
WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE A MAGISTERIUM. (Not shouting at you.)
Weirdly though, Kathy, so many dissenters pridefully base their dissent on their alleged cognitive abilities. How many times have you heard a cafeteria Catholic say: “I’m Catholic, but I can also think for myself” as they then proceed to tell you why they are right about [insert favorite dissenter’s topic such as euthanasia, abortion, women priests, ad nauseum] and they ‘think’ the Church is wrong. If they really could think, though, it shouldn’t take them very long to figure out that what they are really saying is “…and I think I know more than God Himself.” Same old trick that Adam and Eve fell for – and look how well that worked out for them and the rest of us.
“I’m Catholic, but I can also think for myself..”
This is very popular in a university community.
Substitute “think” for “feel.” That’s really the gist of it. Liberals (and I used to be one) mistake sympathetic feelings toward a group for reasonable support of that group’s interests. Anyone who disagrees with someone’s feelings, then, is brutish and cruel, which translates to them as irrational.
Whenever I hear “I’m Catholic, but…” my intellectual juices start flowing. I know I’m going to hear some fallacy that I’ll have fun refuting.
I used to be one of those “I’m Catholic, but. . ” people. I didn’t even know this was wrong, because it was the world that I grew up in. My mother is a secular Carmelite, yet told me that the reason the church is against birth control is that the people used to need lots of kids to work the farms; and that the Right to Life folks were annoying zealots. Just hearing the word abortion spoken during a homily would set her off about “here they go again. . .” I used to ask in all seriousness, how much can you disagree with Church teaching and still be a “good Catholic?”
My world view changed because I was willing to make the effort to learn the truth. I can still remember the day the Holy Spirit began to pull at my heart. The pastor of the parish I had just joined said in a homily “what makes me most sad are the people who say they don’t believe what the Church teaches, but when I ask them if they have ever READ the Church teachings, they say no.” How can you not believe in something you haven’t spent the time to even read to know what it says? I felt that he was speaking directly to me, and that very week I bought the Catechism and started reading it. I also downloaded Humanae Vitae and read it completely. As the teaching began to sink in, I began to realize the truth. Then one day I was walking down the hall at work, and it just hit me – BAM – THE CHURCH IS RIGHT ABOUT HUMANAE VITAE. But if the Church was right, then I must be WRONG, and I had to slowly change the entire direction of my life. With the help of some wonderful priests, and my non-Catholic husband (who believes more Catholic teaching than many so-called Catholics) I not only changed direction, but embraced the truth. I became a Natural Family Planning instructor for my archdiocese (there are seven, count them seven, of us in an archdiocese of 150 parishes!!) I also teach Human Sexualilty to the middle school students, because the best thing is to teach them the truth as early as possible. I also now participate (with my two daughters) in the Youth Rally for Life and Right to Life March every year. They know that missing the March is not an option, and they are truly distressed that any woman would willingly take the life of her unborn child. There is hope. If you actively live the truth, you will touch many people and many hearts.
I feel as though I agree with Theocold.
When I’ve run into people who say they can “think for themselves,” my sense is what they are really saying is “I have a greater loyalty to a group other than the Church.”
This works for and against us. When people show up at RCIA with deep apparent conversions, overwhelmingly their reason for being there is that they have known a Catholic who made being Catholic seem attractive. So the Church wins their loyalty through–love. Not truth, love. But then, we teach them.
I just hope that one of the things we teach them is how to really think for themselves, in part because the hardest teachings, e.g. Humanae Vitae, are very reasonable.
I’ve even heard the “Who do they think they are (Rome), telling us what to think. I am an AMERICAN, damnit!”
I lost all hope right then and there…
Pax Christi,
That’s a hilarious example!
I think a lot of times it’s not stated, though. What people say is, I don’t agree with Humanae Vitae. But what they really mean is, my brother and his wife use birth control and I’m not about to condemn them. Or my parents are good Christian people and they don’t believe the Pope is infallible and who am I to condemn them?
I sent this to Pontifications, but here it is for you as well:
Who exactly are these “dissenters”? I suppose Charles Curran and Hans Kung are two of the people Curt Jester has in mind. How well would his list of their vices square with the actual character of these two men, who in my experience are both gentlemen to their fingertips? Most of the alleged vices are purely circular here — they consist in telling dissenters to SHUT UP. Let us not forget to what evils this attitude brought Catholicism in the past. I urge you to look at the text of the encyclical Pius XI was writing before his death — it was long rumored to be anti-Nazi, but in fact it makes no direct criticism of Nazi tactics and mulls over the threats posed by the Jews at disgusting length. I see you erased my previous message on this topic.
� anger: a consuming frustration, disappointment, rage toward the Truth — Curran is without anger, Kung’s anger is prophetic rage, well focused, and it is anger in the name of truth.
� hatred: a self-defining loathing for the apostolic faith — ?
� willful ignorance: a refusal to learn, a refusal to be disciplined (to be a student) — ? Kung has been diligently learning on many fronts, especially in regard to world religions as he constructs his Global Ethic.
� pride: an utter failure to be humble in the face 2,000 years of teaching — ? Curran puts to the Vatican the needs and sufferings of Catholic lay people, without the faintest trace of personal pride.
� arrogance: an expression of pride that manifests as dismissiveness of authority
� entitlement: an obsessive assertion of prerogative/privilege over service
Certainly not true of Curran, who is a man of service. Kung’s labors for the Global Ethic are warmly praised by Ratzinger in Salz der Erde.
� idolatry: the raising up of Novelty and Trendiness as final ends
Perfect nonsense where these two are concerned.
� rebelliousness: revolting against legitimate authority in favor of private choice
Curiously this list of vices avoids several of the standard features of the Identikit of a heretic as perfected by St Jerome and recycled in Pascendi against the Modernists at the start of the 20th century. For instance, disappointed episcopal ambitions and sexual profligacy.
But if Curran and Kung refuse to believe the Church has the authority to teach as she does for 2,000 years, we have a problem. Curran believes that if a teaching is hard (for example, sexual teaching), it should be watered down to a level that people can reach, rather than hold out a heroic ideal. The Church does not, can not, and will not teach this. Igt owuld seem to me that the ocurageous thing for Curran to do would be leave the church.
When Boff did so, because he did not believe what the Church teaches, he totally dropped off the media’s radar, except briefly when PJPII died.
Ummm….pride, anyone?
“Substitute “think” for “feel.” That’s really the gist of it. Liberals (and I used to be one) mistake sympathetic feelings toward”
Exactly. Most average dissenting Catholics probably haven’t bothered to look up any good arguments in favor of their dissension, but rather simply “feel” that way, probably because secular values shape their identity and decisions far more than any Catholic values. So in reality, they are not really “thinking for themselves.” It doesn’t require much independent thought to go with the secular flow. These days, standing up for Catholic Teaching is independent thinking.
Spirit of VII,
I ask you in all charity —
Why on earth would one want to continue membership in an organization whose self-proclaimed reason for existence is at complete odds with what one believes?
The Church proclaims itself to be the One Church founded by Christ and, as such, understands itself as the guardian of God’s Truth in the world. By claiming that this Church has been in error on this or that teaching for 2,000 years (which is, ultimately, what Kung and Curran are doing) they are essentially denying this very reason for the Church’s existence.
Put differently, what exactly IS it that the Catholic Church posseses that they can not find in a separated Christian denomination? For what reason do the stay if they do not believe that the Church is the oracle of Truth?
Again, I am asking in all charity for I do not understand it.
Thanks,
Michael
The sad fact is that Kathy is perfectly correct. Most of what people call thought is in fact emotional reaction based on the prompting of appetites. Hardly anyone engages in rational analysis. I’m always saying it: modernists oppose the Church about contraception, divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and fornication. Whatever organ it is they think with, it isn’t their brains.
The main reason I converted was expressed perfectly by G.K. Chesterton: “We do not want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.”
That stubborn refusal to accept that one could be wrong on an issue has been a barrier to full communion with the Church for many people.
Spirit of VII — are we talking about the same Charlie Curran? Priest for the Diocese of Rochester? The sixties “rock star theologian”? Wears glasses, stands about yay-tall? ‘Cause you sure aren’t describing the Charlie I know.
In my experience (with all due respect to “Spirit of VII”), Fr. Powell’s summary is right on.
I studied under Curran and found him to be quite the gentleman — as long as no one had the audacity to challenge him. His attitude was best summed up as, “The Pope is not infallible, but I am.” He truly could not believe that anyone would have the gall to dissent from his authority.
He also bears a deep anger about rejection by those whom he considers his natural constituency, i.e. Baby Boomers, esp. priests and married couples who are faithful to the Church’s teaching. You see, they give the lie to his condescending theory that the Church lays impossible burdens on us.
Nope, you must know a completely different guy…
Does it matter, in a question of orthodoxy and dissent, whether Curran has pleasant manners or not? He’s wrong, and he’s compounding the fault by teaching wrongly. If I fed my children poison it would hardly be germane to assure the judge that I had a genteel suavity of demeanor and a captivating smile.
I think one of your best posts.
I agree–this is a very important post!
Charles Curran lives in my neighborhood, but I have never seen him at any Catholic activities. The only time that I have ever seen him at all was at a debate with Dr. Janet Smith, who of course won. I would not have given any polite points to Curran, or “Charlie” as people call him, but then again he was in a very bad position, being up against Dr. Smith (who is not a priest) and an audience of several hundred … laity. Now whose needs and sufferings was he defending? And whose sufferings was he causing? Hint: I can answer the latter question.
Michael, you asked
Why on earth would one want to continue membership in an organization whose self-proclaimed reason for existence is at complete odds with what one believes?
I wonder if the answer is the Church paycheque, free housing and free medical and dental care plus someone criticising the Church from within is more likely to be asked to write articles or appear on TV than someone criticising the Church from without.
C S Lewis said it far better than I could:
To Dissenting Priests
“It is your duty to to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other.”
–from Christian Apologetics by C.S. Lewis, Easter 1945.
(Reprinted in God in the Dock pp. 89-90)
I’m glad you posted that, Sharon. I’ve got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about Lewis, and it’s a good tonic to read something of his which is plainly put and direct, and doesn’t drag in any of his somewhat irritating prejudices (especially the Church, and women). What a pity it is that he couldn’t overcome his Ulster upbringing in the end.
What happens when it is the church itself which has defected and no longer “following church teachings” of yesteryear to be Modern and conform to society instead of society conforming to the church and her teachings and morals. This is the first time in her 2000 year history, except for the Aryan heresy of the 4th century that it is the clergy who are corrupt, hence the dilemna faced by those who want to be obedient, know that by compromising the faith and the teachings with Ecumania started by Paul VI and taken full force by JPII in his Koran Kissing, but know something is rotten in Denmark (and I dont mean the cartoon!)
Jeff – excellent post; I see “spirit” has found you as well. Christopher Blosser has background on this dissenting priest.
John – Some thoughts. In the end assuming that the Church is wrong and oneself correct, regardless of whether it is progressive (wanting the Church to change to conform to the culture) or conservative (wanting to hold to what one believes the Church has authoritatively taught in the past), succumbs to the same “spirit of Protestantism” from which arises every spirit of dissent. It is only logical to assume that if the Church has been incorrupt (in teaching truth in the matters of faith and morals but not in her individual members) for 2000 years that She continues to be so today. The only other logical step then is to start to investigate with an open heart if one might himself be wrong in his assumptions.
In the particular cases you bring up: A closer look at history will show that there was widespread corruption among the clergy at several points in the history of the Church but in each and every case they were brought back. Just prior to the Reformation, ignorance of the faith and corporal license were rampant throughout Western Europe. It took over 100 years after Trent to restore the clergy. We have 60 more years to go on that schedule.
You must not confuse false ecumenism with the Church’s mission to be faithful to Christ’s High Priestly Prayer that we all be one. The latter is that to which Vatican II and Paul VI refocused the Church. Dissenters (and even more honest but misguided Catholics) have abused the authentic mission of ecumenism, but abuse does not demand disuse. Otherwise, there would be no room left for any aspect of the Church today. One may honestly argue the prudence of JP the Great’s gesture to Islam in kissing the Koran I suppose. Nevertheless, this is my take on it. I am sure that he judged that anyone reading his writings and hearing him speak would not confuse his gesture of respect for the people of Islam (he also kissed the ground in every country he visited) as a sort of syncretism. He must have weighed this against the importance of changing the attitudes of distrust of Muslims of the West. Trust is a necessary step in pre-evangelization. JP the Great took his responsibility as Shepherd of the Church and Vicar of Christ to the entire world very seriously and reaching out and opening lines of communication which can facilitate the Church’s mission is his responsibility. I also suppose that one could say that he responded hastily in the heat of the moment not wanting to offend and not taking into consideration the scandal it might cause. Nevertheless, even in the latter case, one cannot say that a moment’s imprudence is akin to apostasy.
In the end, I suggest that trust in Christ and His promise to protect and guard His Church is the first step to faith and the ability to see that our interpretation of teachings/events should be the first to be subjected to scrutiny when we think that the Church may have erred.
David,
I have only one response to your defense of JPII “The Great”. Was he a real leader looking out for the 1B catholic souls, or on another agenda. I leave you and all with the following as published in the AP at the time of his death, and the Gospel of St John and James as Our Lord taught, and decide if being “Loved” and called “The great” by these false faiths, especially the Catholic hater Foxman possibly had something to do with him not defending his own faith. I for one am just a little tired of the excuse of “poor implementation” and “improper Ecumenism” Was it not the Pope who put Kaser and his “Ecumenical Hospitality” in place, giving our Lord to non-Catholics?
Religious leaders from across the country praised Pope John Paul II on Saturday, saying the pope aggressively reached out to other faiths and inspired people worldwide.
The pope “revolutionized Catholic-Jewish relations,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman said the pope “normalized” relations with Jews and cited John Paul II’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
“He was a man of God in every sense and a true friend whose visionary leadership will be sorely missed,” Foxman said.
“Pope John Paul II was unquestionably the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world during the last 100 years,” said the Rev. Billy Graham. “His extraordinary gifts, his strong Catholic faith, and his experience of human tyranny and suffering in his native Poland all shaped him, and yet he was respected by men and women from every conceivable background across the world.”
“I think evangelicals also recognize that in the passing of John Paul II we may never see his likes again, and there’s a real sense of loss in that even as we continue to be greatly concerned about the institution of the papacy, we have great admiration for the man,” said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
“The pope was a man of true peace and justice,” said Pawan Deshpande, a member of the Hindu American Foundation Executive Council. “His strong commitment to human rights, democracy and interreligious dialogue will not be forgotten.”
The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said the pope “modeled unselfish compassion.”
He said the pope served as an example of how people of various faiths � or no faith � “can live and work together while enhancing the quality of life for all people.”
The pope “provided inspiration and leadership, not only to Roman Catholics but also to the greater Christian world and beyond with his uncompromising stances in favor of life and against the culture of death,” said the Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, president of the Lutheran Church � Missouri Synod.
“His voice and moral authority gave inspiration and hope to millions well beyond the Roman Catholic Church,” said the Rev. Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, in seeming to sum up the feelings of many ministers.
Gospel according to St John Chapter 15
17 These things I command you, that you love one another.
18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.
19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me.
22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
23 He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.
Epistle of St. James Chapter 4
4 Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.
5 Or do you think that the scripture saith in vain: To envy doth the spirit covet which dwelleth in you?
6 But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
I see. According to John, it was quite wrong for the Holy Father to have influence on any but Catholics. Well, I long ago ceased to marvel at the mean-spirited inanities of schismatics, but, as I’ve had occasion before to observe, John takes them to a whole new level.
Elinor
With all due respect, it is one thing for the Holy father to try to convince those who have denied the One True faith to convert to Catholicism as the church had always taught that we are the One True Faith-but to say that it is OK to deny Jesus as Messiah and not influence those to convert, then that is apostasy or even heretical as you are denying the church by actions (Kissing a Koran -A sign of acceptance and adoration) of the Moslem faith
If the holy father had so much influence, why has every single statistic (except for bankrupt dioceses) declined during his 26 year reign? Where are the influx of conversions.
Schismatic? No, I just refuse to be led into sin by any human, as the Pope if I recall is flesh and blood and born with Original Sin as we all are
Yes, schismatic. And you know it.
I only argue with SSPXers about obedience. You all never want to talk about that, because it’s the point on which your nasty little gang of ex-Catholics are absolutely, totally indefensible, world without end, amen. Now hear this: Catholics aren’t allowed to run their own parishes apart from episcopal authority, they’re not allowed to hire their own priests, and – this is the main point – they’re bloody well not allowed to consecrate bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. So put that in your Protestant pipe and smoke it.
Elinor
Again with respect you failed to answer my question, but the obedience question has been answered and defined already by past Doctors of the church as well as Vatican council I
All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.
The concept that the liturgy is in fact something given and not a reality to be manipulated at will, has completely disappeared from the consciousness of Catholics. Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its safeguarding to be passed on applied in a special way the liturgy. No authority can �fabricate� a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity.� The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation.
The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it.
I quote a Doctor of the Church:
When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See. –St. Robert Bellarmine. So is SSPX really schismatic>?
St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as the former Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: �Vatican II�s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.� This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the �common consciousness� of the Council Fathers.
As St Thomas Said and I quote:
Where there is a proximate danger to the Faith, prelates must be rebuked,even publicly, by their subjects. Thus St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly. –St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14
It may quite possibly it is those who are the so called “Traditionalists” as in other past defections from teachings of the clergy, who are in “Communion” and you who are not. Quite possibly you should examine your own conscience
God bless
Everywhere, always, and by all, huh?
Would you consider the inclusion of marriage in the seven sacraments to be a matter of doctrine? How about that the ministers of marriage are the bride and groom? Because though I certainly believe that marriage was made a sacrament by Christ, it was not determined by the Church for some centuries, and was not taught by all. The latter question is interesting: the Roman Church says the ministers of marriage are the bride and groom, but the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that the minister of marriage is the priest.
What is all this nonsense about “dissenting priests”?
It sounds just like Islamicist nonsense about “blasphemers”?
In both cases what is targeted is simple human freedom, honesty, integrity and common sense.
And how come that those so loud in their ranting against “dissenters” so easily turn their scorn on the Pope when he disagrees with them about torture, capital punishment or the morality of the Iraq War?
By the way, instead of reading Christopher Blosser’s ridiculous misrepresentations, consult my long essay on Deus Caritas Est and see if its views can be called “dissenting” by a sober and discerning reader.
A “dissenting priest” is a priest who willingly speaks AGAINST the truths that he has agreed to speak FOR. No one is forced to be ordained, but once he is he must represent Catholicism rather than his own ideology. The organizational element must become part of his integrity. His prophetic voice should harmonize with the magisterial teaching, not constantly rail against it. Very, very rarely is a priest called upon to be the lonely angry prophet figure, and even then it is usually regarding one certain issue of necessary reform.
Some people take the resemblance of their call to Jeremiah’s way too seriously.
(By the way, I’m not a Republican.)