Sunday, 24 December 2017

Twitter notification

I have finally decided to start using my twitter account, to ensure that this blog works efficiently as a tool for promoting the Catholic Faith. I need some more followers though, so would appreciate it if the regular readers and commentators here sign up as followers. It should help to alert about new blog posts and random, irrelevant thoughts and such stuff.

@emmettoregan

73 comments:

RC said...

A good start! I've literally just finished posting on the last thread about incteasing exposure for your work! I'd like to say great minds think alike but my mind isn't the sharpest tool in the box!

Rachmaninov said...

Welcome Emmett to the lion's den! There is a fair bit of nastiness on twitter unfortunately.
Stephen

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks for the heads up Stephen! You're putting me off already! I've seen the way you've been savaged by the right-wing media, and find it utterly depressing that Catholics would treat a fellow brother in Christ in such a disgraceful fashion. They should be hanging their hands in shame. I don't know how they present themselves for the Eucharist in good conscious when they behave in such a manner. I think we have all become conditioned by the extensive use of social media to descend into frequent occasion of sin, and it is now becoming the "norm" to trample on the human dignity of others in a sanctimonious manner. I'll have to be careful myself.

Merry Christmas to you and Paula and the kids!

JMC said...

That's one of the reasons I avoid social media. My primary reason is that I simply see no need to be sharing every aspect of my life with the whole wide world. The only reason I even have a Facebook account at all is because it's required in order to be able to comment on certain websites. Other than that, I never use it.

Emmett O'Regan said...

I think you are right to stay away from it as much as possible JMC. As I've been saying for years, technology is not neutral. My good friend and intellectual giant of the Catholic world, Stratford Caldecott, warned of the dangers that social media presents. I think we are witnessing the negative fruits of this gradual descent in the way Catholics have now become accustomed to treating each other online. This level of bickering didn't seem to be a feature when I first started blogging, but there has now been a complete slide into mud-slinging in every sphere of the web. Something is not right.
http://beauty-in-education.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/regenerate-science.html

Rachmaninov said...

Cheers Emmett, a very happy Christmas to your family too! And seasons greetings to all your readers!
Stephen

Mark L said...


I am a very big fan of Gabriel Marcel. I am also fond of Josef Pieper. He spelled it out a long time ago:

“... the greatest menace to our capacity for contemplation is the incessant fabrication of tawdry empty stimuli which kill the receptivity of the soul.”
― Josef Pieper, Happiness and Contemplation

More recently, Susie Linfield wrote this about the power of moving images on a screen:

They “sweep us into them sometimes against our will.... They are unique in their ability to make us surrender – which is why they are so effective. And this is so even when a viewer is consciously antagonistic to the message a film conveys...the viewer often abandons herself to the action in front of her and must struggle, after the fact, to reassert her autonomy and reconnect to what she knows. She must undo the process of dissolving; she must reassert her separateness and her ‘heightened presence of mind’.”

And this from Susan Sontag, in a 2007 book “At the Same Time”:

“A photograph may be telling us: this too exists. And that. And that. (And it is all ‘human’.) But what are we to do with this knowledge – if indeed it is knowledge, about, say, the self, about abnormality, about ostracized or clandestine worlds?”


Merry Christmas,
Mark L

Jason R. said...

Merry Christmas one and all!

Emmett, I just wanted to add my voice as sharing your real concerns about social media not being neutral technology. Marshall McLuhan's ideas on media cast an enormous shadow over Canadian ideas on the dangers of mass media, with the effects of social media being seen as particularly troubling (even though Canadians are as plugged into the system as anyone, I see a lot more think pieces on, say, CBC, than I do at the BBC, CNN, Der Spiegel, etc., on the pitfalls of social media and it's largely already-filled potential of shaping and forming popular opinion with an incredible and alarming power; Josef Goebbels would have had a field day with Facerbook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc.). Though social media is often touted as freeing people more than ever to form their own beliefs and opinions, more often than not the exact opposite is true, with opinions being shaped instead though mist if us are totally oblivious to that fact.

Here is an article from October that I bookmarked that really opened my eyes to how many of the people who built the very functions social media's wild success is based upon ringing the alarm bells over many of the worst aspects of social media (by specific design, so far from an unintended consequence), from how it negatively impacts our cognitive functions, to the the addiction aspect, to how it is very much subtly (and not so subtly) is attacking our free will itself, not just collectively but down to an individual level as well, that I thought some folks might find interesting (and perhaps, like me, more than a bit alarming):

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia?CMP=share_btn_link


JMC said...

I certainly agree with you. My brother still maintains his old flip-phone, which is ONLY a telephone (no camera, internet access, etc. like the smartphones of today). He runs a computer consulting business and recently had a meeting with his employees, wherein he had to specifically tell them to put the blankety-blank phones away, because they were texting their comments back and forth instead of actually talking, and he couldn't follow them, since he didn't have a smartphone. He also tells me that, in New York City at least, while people can read, they can't write. Graffiti has become totally unreadable, because instead of writing letters, they make up glyphs instead, and they're not standardized in any way. People register a particular glyph for their banking signature instead of actually signing their names, all because they never bothered to learn how to physically write.
.
People don't talk to each other anymore, even when they're sitting in the same room. There's something sinister about that, especially when you consider the fact that a lot of people are taking offense because they aren't getting the cues from tone of voice or body language that tell them when, for instance, you're joking and not serious. Emoticons don't always do the job, either. People are becoming increasingly isolated from each other, and that's not healthy. Deliberate self-isolation is actually one of the signs of certain mental illnesses. I have to wonder if it also can't cause those same illnesses.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks for pointing this out JMC. I'm going to have to return to this topic, as it seems to be a very serious problem today, especially in the Catholic world. It occurs to me that it has been a creeping problem over the past few years, and we have all become conditioned like boiled frogs into adapting compulsive behaviour via social communications, where charity is either completely ignored or forgotten, and the dignity of the individual human person is trampled upon as a result.

Emmett O'Regan said...

RC, what does Fr. Ray Blake say about the dogma of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See? Does he automatically default to the Gallican position as well, by stating that indefectibility is given to the Church, and not the Apostolic See alone? This is St. Bellarmine's "second opinion", which was only tolerated in the Church up to 1691, when Pope Alexander VIII condemned the four articles of Gallicanism. Indefectibility was conferred upon the Apostolic See alone, as St. Bellarmine and Pastor Aeternus clearly teach. This was our "Battle of the Boyne" victory for the dogmatization of indefectibility and papal infallibility, which came with Vatican I.

RC said...

Erm you have thrown a bit of a curve ball there Emmett and blindsided me quite a bit! I'd have to go on his blog and have a look and Il also have to go and read about gallicanism as I must confess this is the first time I've heard of the term! Is there someone somewhere on the blogosphere masquerading as me?,as I am slightly confused as to the context of your post?

Emmett O'Regan said...

Sorry! Didn't mean to get technical, and it was in reference to something you said about a few days ago. From memory it was something along the lines that indefectibility was given to the Church in general, and not to the Apostolic See itself in particular. From what I've seen elsewhere, this is the only argument that has been given against my position so far. Prof. Roberto de Mattei argued for this position on indefectibility in Rorate over a year back. It's just Gallicanism though, which was still tolerated in the Church at the time of St. Bellarmine, but was completely ruled out by Pope Alexander VIII in 1691. This is when all the speculation on heretical popes during the post-Tridentine period effectively ended. I thought you might have read some critical assessment somewhere of my last two articles on La Stampa, and that the Gallican position was appealed to as an attempted answer. I assumed Fr. Ray Blake might have said something along these lines. I had someone else try to appeal to this option by default, so thought that it must have been in a response to my article. The silence is deafening though. I'd love to see someone in the blogosphere or academic world try to address how the dogma of indefectibility can be reconciled with the idea of heretical popes without resorting to Gallicanism. So far its been a backwards 2-2=0 non-argument really, in that the pope is teaching heresy, therefore popes can be heretical. This can't be sustained without calling the indefectibility of the Apostolic See into question though, which has a direct knock-on effect for infallibility. I would like to see someone of some influence attempt to explain this little bit of pickle for the heretical pope idea. If you see anyone attempt to address this conundrum, let me know.
Thanks for your advice on writing for other publications. Cheers mate! I hadn't really thought of the fact that my articles on La Stampa might have opened up possibilities for me in this regard. I might just do this.

RC said...

Evening Emmett,
I haven't to my recollection seen a direct reference to your position,then again i have a very bad habit of not bookmarking articles and relying on my own simplistic mind and ever failing memory!
The most recent debates appear to like most if them it seems,all are centring around magesterium, infallibility and de mattei and edwards debating canon 915 and its role amongst other things! Theres a few snippets that might warrant your views and interpretation should you have time to consider them? I think recently I've been trying to boost my poaition in terms of assent to AL,Dr John Joy has some stuff if you want me to copy it over?

Emmett O'Regan said...

RC, from things going on behind closed doors on social media, I know for a fact that my various potential sparring partners on the heretical pope idea have been left absolutely stumped by my articles on indefectibility. That's why they're not answering. They can't go up against dogma without being branded a heretic. They are bookended by infallibility on two fronts - the legitimacy of papal elections, and the dogma of indefectibility. They now have nowhere else to go but to attempt to think outside the box, and admit that Pope Francis isn't teaching heresy. If they keep on going with calling the pope a heretic, the big hitters in social media will be excommunicated in public by the CDF to send out a strong message to the rest of the laity to wind their necks in and submit. They'll either be branded heretics and anathematized or at the very least denied Holy Communion, all due to contravening the documents of Vatican I. The heresy charge rests upon whether or not the indefectibility of the Apostolic See is de fide credenda, or de fide tenenda. If you want a tip from a bookie in the know, it's an absolute dead cert that it's credenda, because infallibility is credenda, and infallibility is a secondary object of indefectibility in dogmatic theology (if you can understand these terms and their implications). So to deny it in full knowledge would therefore be formal heresy and would automatically excommunicate someone from the Faith. I might not have a Phd before my name, like John Joy, but I can assure you that this is due to poverty rather than lack of education. I simply haven't been able to afford a Phd, because of coming from a poor background in West Belfast. The fact that I won the theology prize at the Institute of Theology at Queen's should speak for itself though, since to the best of my knowledge no other Catholic in Northern Ireland has won this in the history of the university. It would take you to contact the records office at the Institute of Theology at Queen's to know this for sure though - which I haven't done. But at the time I won it in 2006, it was considered a big deal. Maybe some other Catholic has won the theology prize since then... It's not as if I gave up the ghost with theology after graduating. I went on to become highly specialized in the particular field of eschatology. So the lack of a Phd before someone's name doesn't always belie the truth about the level and quality of their knowledge.

RC said...

You are 100% right in my opinion,letters before or after a man's name mean little or nothing to me when it comes to truth,logic and reason.I think you are more than capable of dueling with any of them be they professors,doctors or whatever, which is precisely why I value your input and interpretations of positions put forward. I never lose sight of the fact that God exalts the humble and the lowly.God did not clothe the word in flesh from an earthly queen, he chose the most humble of handmaids,likewise he didn't give charge over His Son to an earthly king,no he gave the duty and priveledge of the care of the most precious vessels on earth to a carpenter! Christ didnt call the learned or men of importance as His disciples he called fishermen and the like,men who weren't in haughty priveledged states. A saint I have great devotion to is St John Vianney, a man who barely made ordination due to his struggles with academia but one of the greatest priests who ever lived,a man who's preaching and catechis would put the wisest and most learned to shame! Saints like Bernadette and Joseph of cupertino were most certainly not intellectual powerhouses but among te finest in our church! Whilst i most certainly respect anyone who has worked hard to gain knowedge and qualifications it most certainly not the barometer i place most importance on in my quest for truth knowledge and reason.

Emmett you have to make allowances for people like myself. Although I was raised from birth in the church, my primary school and secondary schools were Christian brothers, I am basically on the journey of self catechism and thus as I say I like to establish from varying positions. At school the cirriculum was extremly light in dogma and doctrine,I remember learning the very basics and about people like Oscar Romero, I genuinely cannot recall a homily from a priest on actual dogma or doctrine! Maybe I've been unlucky but I don't recall a priest preaching on the four last things for example,on the Eucharist,in depth on sin,on marian doctrine etc. Look on me like a pilgrim Emmett,lets say I am at the beginning of the Camino,standing there with my map scratching my head and fearful of what lies ahead and trying to find my way, now in my hand is various writings on the best way to reach my goal, Emmett O Regan has written some thesis on what path to take how to avoid getting lost,places to stay along the way etc,based on his experience walking the camino many times,i also have a book from a fellow named de mattei, he has also walked the camino but he seems to be at odds with Emmetts recommendations, each guide book has its merits to my mind so I have to possibly obtain more guidebooks from each perspective to help form my journey. I hope that makes sense?.......part 1

Emmett O'Regan said...

Dr Joy's assessment of the ordinary Magisterium largely follows the errors of Gallicanism in attempting to limit the scope of papal authority to the extraordinary Magisterium. According to his view, we don't have to give submission of the will and intellect to any of the ordinary Magisterium. It's basically Cafeteria Catholicism and a riff on Sola Scriptura, which is ironic coming from a traditionalist. According to this position, we don't need to accept the Church's teaching on contraception, since this is not solemnly defined teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium, and is only part of the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium.

RC said...

Part 2......Emmett il be honest I'm currently in a lifevest clinging on desperately to the barque of Peter looking for lifeboats! Otherwise I'd have taken refuge long ago on ships such as the sspx but I haven't, If I present something on here its your valuable consideration of such a perspective that i'm after, i am most certainly not suggesting that a professor or doctor trumps your input at all. When you asked had I encountered a direct reference to your articles i went and had a look,but as I said everything seems to be centred on magesterium and infallibility and more recently there seems to be a debate between de mattei and edwards on canon 915. I found some stuff from john joy I would like your input on, I'd never heard of him before and didnt know if you had either? I don't imagine anyone here hasn't heard of de mattei so theres little need to prefix him with prof! Anyone googling John Joy might be faced with many thousand results so it may have helped to prefix him iniatially with dr! I am not in any way implying concrete truth in his position because he is a dr! Good Lord no that is not my intention, I need help in discerning what is happening at the moment and your counter arguements to stuff that is out there is a great help to catholics like me! Incidentally Emmett I studied politics at queens,wrong choice!! Many years later I attempted to right that mistake and was accepted by St marys university twickenham to study theology, alas because i had been to uni before the govt thought it prudent that I would not be eligible for any grant and could only apply for a loan of half the fees,being a working class west belfast Catholic like yourself I couldnt afford the fees as well as accomodation and living costs of london as well and had to basically give up on a dream,so I more than understand your frustration in gaining your phd! The first year I was due to study at St marys Pope benedict was to visit the institution as part of his visit to the uk,that merely rubbed salt into my wounds :(

Emmett O'Regan said...

RC, I think it is important to be able to distinguish the difference between imprudent teachings and heretical or immoral ones, and between doctrine and pastoral discipline. Were the liturgical changes made after V2 immoral or heretical? No. Imprudent? Possibly. Is the new teaching on AL heretical? No. Is it imprudent and open to abuses? Possibly. You might want to try to work these angles more in your opposition in the other places you are writing, rather than falling into the errors of many of the other peoples' opinions you are reading. It is very easy to be led astray. You could be quite justified in arguing for a return to a more prudent application of pastoral discipline in order to prevent abuses like Holy Communion for all D&R, and not just a tiny select few whose previous marriages actually were invalid, but can't be ascertained before a marriage tribunal.Try to focus on this aspect. There are plenty of invalid marriages out there, so it logically follows that a few of the D&R are in valid marriages in the eyes of God, and therefore in full Communion with Christ. When in doubt, stick with the pope, and trust that the protection of the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to be corrupted in faith or morals. I support the TLM and would advocate the full implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, but I accept the teachings of the current Magisterium with docility.

RC said...

Evening Emmett,
Unfortunately for your stress and sanity levels at least,I tend to reserve my scrawlings for this website as I do find it my favourite among the Catholic blogosphere,although starting to get a wee bit intrigued there may be a 'rogue RC' out there you have encountered! Anyhow,found the following quote from Benedict which I think allies itself to a lot of what you said in your last post?.....

Benedict concluded his introduction by telling Cardinal Müller: “You have defended the clear traditions of the faith, but in the spirit of Pope Francis you have tried to understand how they can be lived today.”

JMC said...

That's actually a wonderful statement. God does not change, which means His laws do not change; it's simply a matter of trusting that He would not load us down with a standard that was impossible to live up to. Difficult, yes; he did warn us that the way to heaven was a strait and narrow road. Living a life of faith isn't easy even during the best of times, because we always have to fight our own concupiscence. But in a society that actively tries to make you abandon God's law...there's a reason the phrase "white martyrdom" exists.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Lol! Sorry, RC, I saw someone commenting on Fr. Ray Blake's blog under the name RC a few months back, and presumed it was you, since you both live in Brighton. My mistake, sorry buddy! Yes, that's a good quote. If you read back through the past Magisterial documents, you'll find implicit acknowledgment that there were a few exceptions to the rule concerning the status of some of the D&R in various complex and concrete circumstances, but in order to avoid confusion, it was considered prudent to place a blanket ban on reception of Holy Communion for people in these situations, and to ask that any of them who may be in full Communion in both their own consciences and in eyes of God should offer their suffering from being denied the Sacraments up as a witness to the sanctity of the Eucharist. Before Familaris Consortio, there was a similar allowance provided in the internal forum for some of the D&R during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI, so the return to this application of pastoral discipline in AL isn't really the novelty it is being made out to be, and I suspect that much of the clamour being directed against Pope Francis is due to the utter conviction among a large number of Catholics in the Joachite idea of an heretical destroyer pope as the "man of sin" who will introduce the "abomination of desolation". This is apparently what the allowance in AL is for a tiny few of the D&R who are fully justified in the eyes of God, and as such Francis is an apostate, tyrannical anti-pope who is none other than the False Prophet of the Apocalypse.

This idea has been stoked by the Sedevacantist movement and filtered down into the Fatimist movement, with the idea of an apostasy occurring "at the top of the Church". They are seeing what they want to see in the pontificate of Pope Francis, allowing him to become a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own choosing, without considering the fact that the idea of an heretical or apostate pope (rooted in Joachism) has been ruled out by the Church for a very long time, and actually contradicts dogma. This is what upsets me most about what I am seeing from these numerous assaults being directed against the Holy Father. Ok, Pope Francis might not be perfect, and he says the odd troubling or confusing statement in his capacity as a private teacher. But no successor of St. Peter is perfect in this regard, and none of them are protected from falling into material heresy in a private capacity. They are all weak men who have their own faults. But I do not think that the level of these attacks in their ferocity against Pope Francis is in any way justified, and actually finds its origin in one of the most divisive and destructive ideas to have arisen in Christianity, which has had particularly tragic and ongoing effects in the six counties of our own beloved land. Being a Belfast man, I'm sure you've directly felt the loss of a loved one to the bitter sectarian hatred that the idea of a papal antichrist has produced, and they way that the Catholics of Ireland were twisted into being perceived as the subjects of the Antichrist himself by some fanatical Unionist leaders, as a rallying cry for indiscriminate sectarian killings by loyalist death-gangs. Nearly everyone I know has suffered a direct or indirect loss as a result of the Troubles.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Remember the phrase "Yabba dabba do, any taig will do!"? Or the old slogans "KAT" "Kill all Taigs" or "KAI" - "Kill all Irish" being daubed everywhere across Belfast by the loyalist gangs who took active measures to ensure that their poisonous ideas were enforced to the fullest extent? This is all directly rooted in the idea of a papal antichrist. So, I'm sure you will fully understand why I am utterly, vehemently and fundamentally opposed to this idea in all its forms and on all possible levels. Including its offshoot variant idea of an heretical pope, which was only being discussed by the theologians of the Counter-Reformation in direct response to the coalescence of the idea of a papal antichrist figure into a tangible and irrevocable schism. A schism which has cost the lives and souls of countless millions and placed a particularly burdensome cross to bear on the faithful Catholic martyrs of Ireland and England.

Emmett O'Regan said...

I'm so glad to have been able to have this dialogue with you RC. It has been somewhat cathartic, and has caused me to reflect on the true origins of my opposition to the idea of a papal antichrist or heretical pseudo-pope.

RC said...

Afternoon Emmett,
I fear there's been another misinterpretation on my part, when you said my writings in other places I imagined you meant like the volume and position of posts I present here, you are not losing your mind, I recall posting once on fr blake when he posted he was having a hard time with himself,i recall offering my prayers to him and a scriptural reflection but nothing I can recall on the current pontificate or what I post here usually,Yes same diocese as fr but different town! Mea culpa! There is a guy who posts on 1p5 as Rc but then signs a raglan crow so if you ever encounter him its not me!! I don't comment there altho i do read,can get a bit vicious there!
Of course I understand what we had to live through for our faith,as you say Emmett almost everyone we would know has been affected by being slaughtered for no other reason than they were catholic or Irish. As a people we have been martyred for centuries through cruel oppression of our Catholicism and we fought like tigers for the holy Catholic church,although I wasn't born when it happened,i am a ballymurphy man so the massacre is keenly felt and reasonates every bit as much as the activities of cromwell right through to bloody sunday,vermin like adair and billy Wright. The constant fear for your life, the constant fenian/papist b*****d taunts,the triumphalism of walking past our churches spewing vitriol and glorying in the death of millions of Irish starved through famine. Emmett i absolutely understand your position, there's times when I do get seriously down about what is happening today, can you understand though how hurt one feels when my pope,the leader of our church calls someone like me a rabbit because i adhere to teaching on contraception? I heard it so many times growing up,"you taigs should be sterilised and stop breeding like rabbits and bashing your bin lids" So you must understand when it comes from your own spiritual leader it stings like hell? I find though recently the boul Frank Patterson a great help, in times of despair out comes Frank and a blast of 'faith of our fathers' rouses me magnificently,quare medicine it is :)

RC said...

You will also be glad to know that our exchange is benefitting me greatly.I am learning to read deeper, to reflect and think on more than one emotive level and thus to temper my passion somewhat!

I've been slightly distracted the past few days by some of the books I got for Christmas. You won't be surprised to learn one of them was the dictator pope :) Ordinarily I'd have charged straight in like a bull in a china shop, but in conjunction with another book I'm reading Im learning more and more. In the colonna book it mentions a report from a the head of the jesuits Kolvenbach,it basically attacks the then Fr Bergolio as being totally unsuited to the bisphoric. I was surprised to learn that Fr Bergolio was resistant to the pervading tide of liberation theology and was actually viewed as conservative and orthodox. Now as chanve would have it the other book i am in the process of devouring is 'the jesuits' by Malachi Martin! In there it transpires that Fr Kolvenbach was an ardent admirer of liberation theology and more than hetrodox in his view on the moral teachings of the church!! A valuable lesson learned i thought to myself, without the other book/source It would be reasonable to think of Fr Bergolios unsuitability to being a bishop based on the report of a man who obviously had an agenda!! Im learning Emmett! Don't jump off the deep end so readily!
I don't know your opionion of Malachi Martin,or if you have read the jesuits, but good lord it would make you weep what John Paul II had to go through, if you think some of the oppostion to Francis has been vicious some of the stuff in this book would make paisleys attacks on the papacy seem poaitively charitable!! Its incredibly sad to read, one incident in Nicaragua when he said mass made my blood boil how he was treated and the hateful disrespect shown to him and his office, sickening it was. Its a very enlightening read on many levels! One thing that does seem prevalent to me through all the papicies is the role of many thomas cromwell types in the curia, power does indeed appear to corrupt and the life of a pope is certainly not an easy one!!

JMC said...

Emmet, your remarks about older Vatican writings acknowledging the fact that there are indeed some D&R who are fully justified in God's eyes has gone a long way to setting my mind at ease about this whole issue. It all makes so much more sense now! He's not introducing anything new, just moving to set guidelines to dealing with this situation so that such people actually can go to Communion after all! This is really, *really* good news! Thank you so much!

Anonymous said...

JMC, just a follow-up to your 3:01 response to Emmett - I’m going from a few notes I took but you may be able to search online from the little info I have. I believe the Holy Father released AL on April 8, 2016, and about a fortnight beforehand Dr Robert Moynihan had sent out to his readers one of his Letters from Inside The Vatican in which Cardinal Kasper said that the release of AL was imminent and Pope Francis would express himself definitively on the themes of the family addressed during the Synod and in particular on the participation of the faithful who are divorced and remarried in the active life of the Catholic community. I have just looked up the quoted words from Cardinal Kasper - “This will be the first step of a reform that will make the Church turn a page after 1700 years”.

Dr Moynihan then speculated on what Cardinal Kasper might have been referring to but was not able to confirm it with him. Moynihan provided the following from the 325AD Council of Nicaea Canon 8:

“Concerning those who call themselves Catharine (“Pure ones”), if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period (of penance) laid upon them, and a time (of restoration) fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church......”

It continues on a bit JMC and I don’t know if it is any help but you may be able to find the whole thing from the above.

Karen

Anonymous said...

Sorry JMC, auto-correct kicked in! Should read Cathari instead of Catharine. The Cathari or “the pure” were the Novationists, not to be confused with the Cathars of the late Middle Ages. (Moynihan)
Karen

Aquinas3000 said...

That is not a correct summary of Dr Joy's views, Emmett. Perhaps there is a disagreement as to whether something is ordinary magisterium but he has never said we don't need to assent to the ordinary magisterium (I've read his licentiate thesis in addition to his published articles). One of the points his doctorate makes is that the term ordinary magisterium should be used to refer to the ordinary and universal magisterium which is infallible. The religious submission of mind and will pertains to what is better called the authentic magisterium which he does affirm needs our assent. The doubling up in terminology has led to confusion. Be that as it may contraception is condemned at least by the ordinary and universal magisterium and others would argue (correctly I would argue) that the condemnations in Casti Connubi and HV are ex cathedra. "Solemn definitions" tends to be an expression used to refer to definitions of dogma. Ex cathedra statements do not have to be dogmatic but can be about those matters which are to be held with certainty even if not proposed as objects of faith.

I think your main problem is equating virtually everything in a papal document with the authentic magisterium whereas LG actually lays down criteria for this. Popes sometimes make comments about secular matters even in encyclicals etc and that does not make such comments "magisterial."

Emmett O'Regan said...

I do not intend to demean Dr. Joy's overall work, Aquinas, but attempting to restrict or compartmentalize magisterial teaching in such a fashion is a form of neo-Gallanicism, and undermines the extent of papal authority. It ultimately descends into a form of solipsism, where no one really knows what is magisterial and what is not, so we can build our own private magisterium, and refuse to give submission of the will and intellect to whatever teachings you don't personally like. I would agree that the teachings on contraception is most likely ordinary and universal Magisterium, but it has never been formally categorized as such. I was using this as an extreme example of something which is still only part of ordinary Magisterium at present, even though a case can be made for it being ordinary universal (unless you can point me to where it was raised to dogma by a non-defining act). We have to give submission of the will and intellect to anything that goes into the AAS.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Here's one example of an older CDF document on this subject by Cardinal Ratzinger, JMC:

"Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

Aquinas3000 said...

First of all, the whole idea of the universal and ordinary magisterium is that it is the day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world so of course it is not going to be "formally categorised" as such - it is precisely a non formal (but infallible) way of teaching. It does not work very well when the teaching is called into question or doubt since then a specific act needs to be carried out to stamp out the controversy. However one can easily make the case for its status here as Ford and Grisez do in great detail.

Now going even beyond this into the extraordinary magisterium I did give you an example - Casti Connubi and Humanae Vitae. However, as I explained in my post it is not a "dogma" i.e proposed as formally revealed. The difference between the ordinary and universal magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium is not whether something is a dogma or not. Both secondary and primary (i.e dogmas) objects of infallibility can be taught both by the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. Dogmas defined ex cathedra or in an ecumenical council tend to have a very solemn wording but this is not essential as not specific formulae is required - all that suffices is that the Pope (or the Council) put an end to the controversy in a conclusive manner as Gasser explained to the VI Fathers.

But going back to the main topic - the idea that Dr Joy does compartmentlise the magisterium or says we don't need to assent to the authentic magisterium is precisely what I am disputing. It is not the case that no one knows what is or is not magisterial. The point is there are a few basic criteria for it which are spelled out in Lumen Gentium (and hence ironically requires your assent). The most basic condition of all is that it is to do with faith and morals. But there are three criteria in total. A good example of what is not magisterial would be the arguments or explanations that a Pope uses to support a teaching - it is the teaching itself that requires the assent not necessarily how he decides to support it. This is quite well known and laid down in ecclesiology manuals.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Your argument lacks substance Aquinas. How is the average Catholic supposed to differentiate between what is magisterial and what is not, according to your neo-Gallican standpoint? It is either all or nothing. I can see beyond the smoke and mirrors which is being used to undermine the papal magisterium.

Aquinas3000 said...

Are you saying Lumen Gentium is wrong to posit various criteria? Are you denying the subject matter of magisterial statements is faith and morals? I'm confused. I don't see how pointing this out is "neo Gallicanism" - such labels are not helpful.

Aquinas3000 said...

Also can you explain this "and infallibility is a secondary object of indefectibility in dogmatic theology". What is a secondary object of indefectibility? Surely you meant secondary object of *infallibility*?

Emmett O'Regan said...

Lumen Gentium 25 helps us to identify magisterial teachings when the pope speaks as a private teacher. It says that magisterial teachings can be distinguished even in this private capacity verbally if the pope repeats the same point time and again. Everything in a magisterial document is magisterial teaching. The ordinary Magisterium is not a pick and mix Cafeteria where we choose what teachings we like for ourselves. Your view attempts to push the teachings of the ordinary Magisterium out into some unfathomable ether, making it altogether redundant, and is intended to place restrictions on the scope of papal authority. This is clearly so you don't have to accept all of the pope's teachings - which is a type of Gallicanism. So I find it helpful to identify your stance with previously defined terms.

Also, the fathers of the First Vatican Council specifically stated that infallibility was expressly deduced from indefectibility, since both Bellarmine and Suarez taught that the pope was only infallible because he could not defect from the Faith. So infallibility depends on indefectibility to work, not the other way about.

aprigio melo said...

Merry chritmas and happy new year emmett

Emmett O'Regan said...

Happy New Year Aprigio!

Aquinas3000 said...

Emmett, you are adding words to LG that are not there. It is not talking about the Pope teaching in a "private" capacity. If he is teaching as a private individual and not qua Pope it is not magisterium. Rather it explicitly states it is talking about his authentic magisterium as such (which you are calling ordinary magisterium but I prefer the term authentic as used in LG because it can get confused with the "ordinary and universal magisterium"). Note that one of the criteria is the "character of the documents" so it is not talking about some private teaching. Not how in the first sentence it says "even when he is not speaking ex cathedra" - so it is referring all exercises of the Pope's magisterium which are not ex cathedra.

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

By the way, unless you can nominate a papal teaching I don't accept it would be better if you refrained from ascribing motives. The real problem here, I suppose, is we are dealing with first principles - as to whether everything a Pope says constitutes a "teaching".

I don't have a problem with the idea that infallibility and indefectibility are related to each other (the question of how this relates to the Pope's faith is not something I'm prepared to get into on this thread). However, I'd be surprised if you could find a theologian that uses the terminology "secondary object of indefectibility."

Aquinas3000 said...

So just to add to my comment "not speaking ex cathedra" means not using his extraordinary magisterium i.e speaking infallibly. It does not mean "when he speaks privately". It is describing the exercises of his magisterium the rest of the time when it falls short of infallible teaching. There is nothing in there about teaching in a private capacity.

Aquinas3000 said...

By the way, to answer your other question, the average Catholic is not expected to do such differentiation. That's the job of theologians. For the vast majority of history people on a day to day basis simply learned it from their parish priest.

Emmett O'Regan said...

The key portion in LG25 is "from his manner of speaking". So magisterial teaching isn't limited to documents, but can actually be found in the day-to-day speeches and homilies made by the pope as a private teacher, if we pay attention to the concepts he wishes to highlight by means of repetition. If you want me to continue to provide you with a platform here, I think it would be best if you refrained from telling me what to do on my own blog. It is quite clear that your motive is to oppose the Magisterium of Pope Francis - whose very faith you are questioning, judging from that above comment. I am no fool. You are opposing the authentic papal Magisterium by seeking to push it into a sphere of some unknowable quantity, so that no one has to submit their will and intellect to it.

JMC said...

Aquinas3000, in answer to your comment about theologists actually using the words "secondary object of infallibility," I'd like to point out such phrases are found routinely in theological texts. As a novice to the study of theology, I find myself struggling with the meaning of some of the words and phrases, which, in such philosophical applications, can have entirely different meanings than they do in their day-to-day usage. There is indeed a difference between the words "indefectibility" and "infallibility," and once you grasp that difference, you can easily see how the latter is actually a PART of the former. Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to explain it in more detail than that, as I'm still learning it myself. But there's a definite reason many students of philosophy find the study of semantics helpful.

Aquinas3000 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aquinas3000 said...

I'm sorry you took you that way Emmett. I was not trying not tell you what to do on your blog but making an appeal as one brother in Christ to another regarding what we say about each other in charity. I have always endevoured to the best of my ability to deal with the issues not the personalities. I think you are a very smart fellow and I enjoy the discussion. For the record I have held this view for years and think it applies to all Popes and I think it is the standard view in the manuals. Sure, I don't have a problem with the fact that homilies form a part of a pope's magisterium (though not very weighty compared to other parts) but this is a technical subdivision. LG is talking about the authentic magisterium as such and doesn't go in these details. In fact such details are precisely what are summarised by listing various criteria - so it is not unknowable, that's the point of criteria. But the most basic point is the magisterium scope is to teach on faith and morals. I could be wrong but it has seemed to me as though you want to push it beyond even that basic starting point. But that is just standard bread and butter stuff; I'm not saying anything novel there.

JMC, thanks for the feedback however you have misread what I said. If you look at it again you will see that I do indeed say that the term secondary object of infallibility is in common usage among theologians. I also say that I agree infallibility and indefectibility are closely related. What I challenged was the term "secondary object of indefectibility." I don't think anyone uses that language but I stand to be proven wrong.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Ok, perhaps I picked you up wrong, Aquinas. Sorry. I've been getting it the neck somewhat lately. The official Relatio on Vatican I, Bellarmine and Suarez all state that the infallibility of the Church is derived from its indefectibility. The Relatio mentions that one of the council fathers wanted Pastor Aeternus to explicitly state that infallibility was expressly deduced from primary and indefectibility. In the Professio Fidei, Cardinal Ratzinger noted that before Vatican I, infallibility was only a secondary object (tenenda), since it is not explicitly found in Scripture. It was only raised to credenda by virtue of the solemn definition in Pastor Aeternus. Indefectibility is explicitly mentioned in Luke 22:32, and Matt 16:18, so didn't need a solemn definition, and could be raised to dogma in a non-defining act.

"The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship, while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith...

"With respect to the truths of the second paragraph, with reference to those connected with revelation by a logical necessity, one can consider, for example, the development in the understanding of the doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility, prior to the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

Can you cite me a magisterial document which teaches that magisterial documents are full of non-magisterial teachings? Or even the relevant section of one of these theological manuals which you are talking about? I have read several, and none of them say that magisterial documents don't always contain magisterial teachings (which sounds absurd). The only time I've came across this idea was when Cardinal Burke started to attempt to argue that AL was non-magisterial, and Dr. Joy and others took this particular torch up and ran with it.

Emmett O'Regan said...

The Church is only able to make infallible definitions because of the guarantee that the successors of St. Peter will never defect from the Faith. This is why it is a secondary object. It requires indefectibility to work.

Aquinas3000 said...

Hey, just a quick reply. OK, I must say this discussion has meant I'm going to be on the look out when I get a chance to back up what I'm saying with more detail. But I don't think you have to look far to find Popes make claims in documents that are not faith and morals per se. I've never thought that undermined the document as a whole. Unfortunately being on holidays I'm not near a library right at the moment.

I don't have much of a problem with what you say in your recent big post. As I said I'm not contesting that infallibility is linked to indefectiblity. Obviously if the Church said something wrong in a context in which she is supposed to be infallible then that would disqualify her claim to be what she is. Whether that means the Pope as a person can never defect from the faith is not something I'm prepared to get into here. I would have said that's a distinct issue and that VI refrained from affirming Bellarmine and Pighius on this (the former of whom admitted his position was a minority position). I'd have to double check that. What I was contesting was the term "secondary object of indefectibility". Theologians use the term "secondary object of infallibility" - I assume that's what you probably meant. Of course one interesting thing that was discussed at VI was whether the extension of infallibility to secondary objects is itself a secondary object at which point it starts to become rather confusing for more people. But objects of indefectiblity isn't really a thing. But that's not to say the two notions aren't related.

When you mention the official relatio do you mean Gasser's? I've read that but it was a while ago.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Aquinas, yes popes are not protected in matters outside faith and morals, I think everyone agrees on that. What does undermine the Magisterium is when you attempt to argue that the pope is not protected against making errors in matters related to faith and morals in Magisterial documents (which contradicts indefectibility), or that Catholics are free to reject certain portions of Magisterial documents because some elements within them are non-magisterial teaching. We both know that Magisterial documents have a pecking order in degrees of importance, but to say that they have a mixture of both magisterial and non-magisterial teachings when it comes to teaching on faith and morals is self-contradictory and illogical.

If I understand you correctly, I think you are pointing out that some elements of such teaching outside of matters related to faith and morals can be open to question, which Donum Veritatis elaborates on in some detail. However it is only theologians who are permitted to hold their assent for certain aspects where the Magisterium can contains such "deficiencies" which need further development and refinement, and they must keep their views private, sharing them only with the relevant Church authorities. Everyone else is required to give religious assent in obedience in order to preserve Church unity. If a theologian refuses to give their complete assent to AL because they think some elements of it is imprudent, they are within their right to do so. But it is forbidden for them to spread their dissent through the mass media and social communications, and for a theologian to call a Magisterial teaching heretical is on a different scale altogether, since this contradicts the dogma of indefectibility, potentially placing them and their followers outside of full communion with the Church. This is why it is so important for such theologians to understand the gravity of their accusations of heresy against the pope, since they are placing souls in jeopardy.

Yes, the official Relatio presented by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser:

"Suggestion #16. The reverend father desires that pontifical infallibility be deduced expressly from the apostolicity and indefectability of the Church. But in reality the apostolicity and indefectability of the Church are suggested in our chapter, and, anyway, not all the arguments can be or should be brought forth lest, if one be omitted, it seem to be of no importance. Therefore this suggestion is not proposed as being acceptable." (par. 57)
https://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/official_relatio

Bishop Gasser felt there was no need to mention this explicitly in Pastor Aeternus, since it was already made implicit within the text itself, and was based on the arguments of Bellarmine and Suarez. It was also spelled out clearly in the Relatio this meant that the Pope as a person could never defect from the Faith, which was in Bellarmine's fourth preposition which he used to support his fourth opinion, which is explicitly quoted by Bishop Gasser in par. 40 of the Relatio:

"It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith."

Bishop Gasser took pains to point out that this was Bellarmine's view, not Pighius', that was being raised to the dignity of a dogma.

Emmett O'Regan said...

"Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith..."

"...From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion." (Relatio par. 40)

This is in direct reference to Bellarmine's "fourth opinion" first outlined in Book 4 Chap II:

"4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics."

The preservation of a Successor of St. Peter from ever falling into formal heresy can only possibly refer to indefectibility, which had to be raised to a dogma in a non-defining act in order to make the solemn definition affirming the dogma of papal infallibility, since the latter requires the former to work.

You'll have to read all of book 4 of de Controversiis to fully appreciate the scope of Bellarmine's arguments.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Bellarmine did not say that his "fourth opinion" was a minority view. He said quite clearly that "The Fourth is very certain and must be asserted and we will state a few propositions so that it can be understood and confirmed more easily". He then goes on to outline four propositions over the course of four lengthy chapters to support his "fourth opinion", which the Relatio says was being raised to the dignity of a dogma. Bellarmine only tolerated the idea of an heretical pope in the context of the "second opinion", which he said was borderline heretical, but admitted that it was still tolerated in the Church during the time he was writing. The "second opinion" was the teachings of the Parisian theologians which later evolved into Gallicanism:

"2) The second opinion is, that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen."

Bellarmine goes on to state "From these four opinions, the first is heretical, the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The Fourth is very certain and must be asserted and will state a few propositions so that it can be understood and confirmed more easily." Book 4 Chap II

Bellarmine's "second opinion" was only tolerated in the Church up to 1691, when Gallicanism was formally condemned. There was no "fifth opinion" which allowed for the idea of an heretical pope separately from the "second opinion". After Gallicanism was condemned, this only left Pighius' "third opinion" and Bellarmine's "fourth opinion" as the two sole remaining options. So it wasn't really that difficult for Bellarmine's "fourth opinion" to be raised to the dignity of a dogma, since the only alternative was Pighius' view.

What we see being done in the Church today is the resurrection of Bellarmine's "second opinion" in a slightly different guise, which can be basically summarized as that "the pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something outside the extraordinary Magisterium". So there is the slight modification which replaces a "general Council" with "extraordinary Magisterium". Obviously, there was no such thing as the extraordinary Magisterium at the time of St. Bellarmine. The closest equivalent to the extraordinary Magisterium in the era Bellarmine was writing would have been the pope acting with a Council, since the idea of the pope making solemn definitions in the extraordinary Magisterium wasn't fully developed and ratified until Vatican I. That's why I am referring to this teaching as a form of neo-Gallicanism, which I think is a correct and precise appraisal, since it is a very slightly modified form of Bellarmine's "second opinion".

Emmett O'Regan said...

Bellarmine's first proposition to counter the first and second opinions was "The Supreme Pontiff can in no case err when he teaches the whole Church in those matters which pertain to faith". Remember, there was no extraordinary Magisterium at the time of Bellarmine, so it would be anachronistic to suggest that he was referring only to ex cathedra pronouncements here. In his first preposition outlined in Book 4 Chap III, Bellarmine argued at considerable length that the Pontiff could not err in matters pertaining to faith because of the gift of indefectibility which was given to the Apostolic See alone, in accordance with Christ's prayer in Luke 22:32. I'll quote the relevant section from Book 4 Chap III below:

"It is also proved by the promise of the Lord in Luke XXII, as we find it in the Greek: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked for you that he might sift you like wheat, yet I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail, and that, thou later being converted, confirm thy brethren." This passage is usually explained in three ways.

1) The first exposition is of the Parisian Theologians, that the Lord here prayed for the universal Church, or even for Peter who stood as a figure of the whole Church, and prayed that the faith of the Catholic Church would never fail. Such an exposition would be true, were it to be understood that he [Christ] prayed for the head of the Church and consequently for the whole body, which is represented by the head, but that is not how they understand it. They would have that the prayer was only for the Church.
This exposition is false. Firstly, because the Lord designated only one person, saying twice "Simon," and adding, as often, the second person pronoun, "for thee," "thy faith," and "thou," "thy brethren." So that we would understand that Christ asked something special for Peter..."

Mark W said...

I take a little time off, and look what happens....

1. This reminds me why I don't have a Twitter account.

2. Jason - time to check in. You still out there, or has the great Canadian winter frozen you solid? Fear not - spring is coming...in...um...three or four months...

3. More seriously, I'm going to hijack the thread for a few minutes, if Emmett doesn't mind -

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/02/fighter-pilot-chases-ufo-urges-world-leaders-to-take-threat-aliens-seriously.html

I've long thought the whole alien thing was of a more diabolical origin than extraterrestrial one. Isn't it interesting that there's a tremendous rise in UFO sightings simultaneous to a tremendous rise in the demand for exorcism? I don't think this is a coincidence. Imagine the impact of First Contact on Christian belief in the already staggered western world.

I now return you to your previous friendly fire incident.

Aquinas3000 said...

I appreciate your response. I haven't commented much on Bellarmine etc because I need to refresh and don't have my copy on me but I will look this up. There are a few things you say on which we are not ad mentem but I'll let you have some peace for a bit!

MightyRighty said...

Emmett,
Time maybe to return to the Prophetic?

Walsingham rededication in 2020 gives a very firm deadline to the conversion of England (to wit https://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/conversion-of-england.html )

John Joy said...

Hello Emmett,

I'm new to this site, but I've heard good things about your work on the Apocalypse and I'm looking forward to getting into it.

I hope you won't mind if I just clarify a few points about my own position, since it happened to come up in your discussion here.

Contrary to what was said above, (1) I agree that the scope of papal authority extends beyond the extraordinary magisterium; I only intended to argue that papal infallibility is limited to the extraordinary magisterium. (2) I agree that we have to give religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching of the authentic papal magisterium; I only intended to discuss what that religious submission entails. (3) I agree that we are obliged to accept the Church's teaching on contraception; in fact, I believe we must hold this teaching definitively. (4) I agree that the doctrinal teaching of Pope Francis in Amoris laetitiae is magisterial, and I have long been puzzled as to how or why Card. Burke could think otherwise.

I must have expressed myself rather poorly if you came away from any of my writings thinking otherwise, which I regret. But I hope this helps clear things up, at least as regards my own position (not that my own position is of any great importance in the grand scheme of things; I would just prefer not to be misunderstood).

Peace in Christ,
John

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks for your kind words John! Thank you for making these clarifications, which helps me understand your position a lot better, and has put my mind to rest in many respects. My apologies if I have let some of the other views being expressed here to colour my reading of your recent article on 1P5:

https://onepeterfive.com/authentic-magisterium-religious-submission/

To be honest, I haven't read any of your work outside of 1P5, and the only other time I came across your material was in your criticisms of Stephen Walford. It was admittedly a short article of yours to focus on, so perhaps I took you up wrong on some essential points. My views on the authority of the authentic Magisterium have been misrepresented somewhat as well (mostly by Christopher Ferrara), which has been characterized as positing an "infallible ordinary Magisterium". So from what you have said above, it seems that perhaps I have been too hasty in lumping you in with the newly emerging form of Gallicanism which is attempting to confine the extent of papal authority to the extraordinary Magisterium, or the ordinary universal Magisterium. There are so many views being expressed right now, it can be difficult to pin down all of them individually. So, again, I offer my apologies if I have took you up wrong in this respect.

The newly emerging Gallican view tends to throw a question mark over the extent to which the authentic Magisterium is protected from errors in faith and morals, which suggests that we should refrain to giving religious assent to certain aspects of the current Magisterium. However, Donum Veritatis is quite clear that it is only theologians who are permitted from withholding religious assent to any potential deficiencies they may come across. There is also the attempt to blur the lines of what is actually authentic Magisterium by pushing its teaching out into some unknowable sphere of knowledge, which is what Card. Burke and others have been suggesting. The neo-Gallican viewpoint forwarded by Prof. Roberto de Mattei in his article on this subject published in Rorate also limits the scope of indefectibility to the Church in general, instead of being gifted to the Apostolic See. St. Bellarmine clearly shows was the constant teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which is explicitly taught in Pastor aeternus. So the various views I have seen on the ground here largely falls into the category of Gallicanism.

It appears that your article is largely being interpreted in a way which lends itself to this neo-Gallican viewpoint, even if that was not ostensibly your intent when writing.
I think this might be down to your use of the word "errors" being present in the authentic Magisterium, which comes across as errors in the area of faith and morals. Of course an error against the Faith is heresy. Perhaps that isn't what your article meant, and you were referring to the potential "deficiencies" mentioned by Cardinal Ratzinger in Donum Veritatis.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Also, one of the other instances I found problematic in that article was the following statement, which appears to allude to the example of Pope Honorius:

"Due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit given to the Church, we can be sure that instances of error in this kind of authentic teaching are rare. And yet since they are possible, our response must also take that into account. So what does the obligation of religious submission mean for Catholics in individual cases of teaching from the authentic magisterium? I think it can be summed up best by saying that we should accept that teaching as true precisely to the extent that it does not conflict with irreformable Catholic doctrine."

This is why I assumed you were adopting the Gallican position, since it is well known that the case of Pope Honorius was used by this movement to attempt to limit the scope of papal authority. The Gallicans tried to dismiss papal infallibility on the grounds that Pope Honorius had defected from the Faith, so indefectibility was given to the Church in general, not to the pope or the Apostolic See in particular.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Below is a relevant passage on this subject from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.
Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.
The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the general and habitual orthodoxy of the Roman See.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VII

Emmett O'Regan said...

Mark W - Aliens! Maybe Pope Francis was abducted, and a clone put in his place as a representative of our new extra-terrestrial overlords! :)

Emmett O'Regan said...

Kidding aside, yeah, I would largely agree that some of this stuff can be put down to preternatural activity, alongside hoaxes and weird weather phenomena such as ball lightning.

Bridget said...

Hi everyone! Happy new year!

This is off topic as well, but is there any prophectic significance to this “super blue blood moon eclipse” I’ve been reading about? What do you guys think?

https://www.space.com/39241-first-blue-moon-total-eclipse-150-years.html?sf177963598=1

Emmett O'Regan said...

Yes Bridget, I've had a friend point out to me that this blue blood moon occurs on the feast of St. John Bosco. And there is another blue moon this year in March, which is a possible contender for the "month of flowers" mentioned in the "March of the 200 days".

MightyRighty, yes I think it is interesting about the Walsingham dedication in 2020. Especially since there is an alignment of all seven classical planets that year, which I argue is the sign of the "keys to death and Hades" which mark the opening and closing of the Abyss. I've had my eye on this for a while now.

RC said...

Emmett,Aquinas and anyone else who may be interested,found a pretty in depth conference on youtube exclusively on the theology of St Bellarmine,runs to over 2 hours but informative,no good with linkey things but its ryan grant exploration of st robert bellarmines theology on the sensus fidelium channel, il attempt a link...

https://youtu.be/yA4jBaBtudY

JMC said...

I'd been wondering about the whole blue-blood moon thing myself. I hadn't heard of the "march of 200 days" before; I looked it up, and I think Emmett may be onto something. It's frightening and hopeful at the same time. Personally, I'm hanging onto the "hopeful" part. To be honest, I'm focusing on the "hopeful" aspect of this entire issue. I think it's just my nature, because I've always found the advance of atheism and secularism to be absolutely heartbreaking. It's nice to think there may be a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel that ISN'T an oncoming train. ;D

Virtue said...

Mark W-

I have suspected for some time now that all "aliens" are demons. For three reasons. First, demons have seemed to appear as mythical creatures throughout all of human history, and aliens are just the "centaurs, minotaurs, mermaids, etc." of today. Second, accounts of abductions sound an awful lot like possessions. Third, since Christ died once for all, and took on human flesh in doing so, aliens would have to be a) unfallen, b) human, or c) nonexistent, for this article of faith to be true. I think c is most likely. Perhaps there are some irrational animals on other planets, but it seems that God would only create them if they would serve humans some purpose in the future. Otherwise, there's really no need for them. Creation was made for humans to cultivate for the glory of God.

Another interesting side point: along with the theory that hell was in the center of the earth, more (relatively) recent times gave rise to the idea that hell was on Mars. I don't think it is, but it's interesting that people had already made a connection between demons and space in times past.

Anyway, interesting side topic!

-Virtue

Anonymous said...

From the GREAT Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

“Wherein faithful canonist Ed Peters guts papolatrous dilettante Stephen Walford
Posted on 5 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
We’ve seen Stephan Walford before. HERE

He is, in essence, papolatrous. He’s also pretty nasty, when it comes right down to it. He blasts away at La Stampa against anyone who dares to have quizzical thoughts about Amoris laetitia.”

Unveiling the Apocalypse readers may enjoy reading Dr. Peters ABSOLUTELY SUPERB take down of the truly traitorous Catholic dissenter Walford here.... (Walford and O’Regan are best buds....which speaks loudly about O’Regan and his character). Happy reading to all who honestly seek the truth.

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/nooo-canon-17-does-not-let-us-undercut-canon-915-and-what-it-protects/

Unknown said...

Wow, thanks for the link, Anon! A real eye opener. Mr O'Regan's work on eschatology is superb but I can't understand the change of tack which is only helping to spread more confusion amongst the faithful. I hope the barque can be righted soon so that the Church can get back on course... Our Lady pray for us.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Oh no! I've been rumbled! I've been secretly trying to hide my friendship with that filthy papalator Stephen Walford for nigh on five years! You might as well come out from under that rock you've been hiding Rachmaninov, everybody now knows you are actually that know-nothing piano teacher Stephen Walford, who is in the pocket of the Pope of Rome.

It's sad times when someone is despised and castigated for the "crime" of nothing other than defending the Pope and his Magisterium. I have suffered some of this flak myself, but not the extent that Stephen has. Thanks for having the courage to defend the Holy Father in his hour of need Stephen, when the Pharisees and Doctors of the Law are out in their droves to stone him, as St. Jacinta foreseen.

There has been no change of tack, anon. If you read back through my work even to the early stages, I have never once allowed any scope for the idea that a pope can be a formal heretic or the False Prophet of the Apocalypse. I have always been dead-set against this idea for good reason. Melanie Calvat's 1879 version of the secret of La Salette was placed on the index of forbidden books because it could give the impression that the papacy would be subverted, and the pope would become the "Man of Sin", as the Protestants insist. Melanie's secret did not explicitly state this though, but rather that the secular city of Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist - not that the papacy would lose the Faith and become the seat of the Man of Sin. Secular Rome has indeed lost the Faith, but the papacy never will, since Christ prayed that Peter would have a never-failing faith. In all likelihood, Rome will indeed become the seat of the Antichrist, during a future foreign invasion which will force the pope to flee - since this is what was foreseen in the visions of Blessed Elena Aiello.

So there has been no change of tack on my part. I have never fallen for the "apostasy at the top of the Church" rumours circulating about the possible "attachment" to the Third Secret, and have always worked to debunk that particular claim. Anyone who has read the first edition of my book will be able to confirm this for you.

Jason R. said...

Hear, hear Emmett.... I was about to respond to that ridiculous post (and the follow up remark) myself that seemed design to just provoke with insults and nothing of substance added. You know your intellectual opponent knows they are losing the argument when mud-slinging from anonymous postings rear their ugly faces, sadly.

Thanks for the inquiry Mark W., we've gotten a bit of a reprieve from the attic vortex that has hung over us for so long (which was -34ish for weeks, and had everyone bundling up and staying home for much of the Christmas season... it even got above freezing temp tiday (yay!!). On the aliens thing, I don't know where my mom got her opinion from, but she was very solid in the Faith, and from the first time I ever asked about UFOs when I was a child around the time E.T. came out she said very matter if factly that UFOs were manifestations if demonic activity designed to weaken Christian belief. I've held on to that take my whole life, so am happily surprised to see that seems to be the consensus view here. 👍

Mark W said...

Good to hear from you, Jason. And clearly I will attest to the wisdom of your mother's view here. :)

RC said...

If one sees a visual representation of one of the demonic entities summoned by aleister crowley i believe,the demon lam, then what you will see is the archetypal image of an 'alien' as described by virtually all witnesses of so called extra terrestrials! Preternatural intelligence can certainly make fools of men who whilst laughing off the existence of demons avidly ascribe to the realm of the aliens!