It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 
 The Church Crucified - input requested 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post The Church Crucified - input requested
Hello all,

I'm preparing this book for publication and would appreciate any input experienced thinkers on these subjects may have on what should be included or treated in it. For example, jurisdiction probably needs a chapter of its own so as to provide clear information on what it is, how habitual jurisdiction differs from supplied, and some detail on the latter. Think of the usual objections and the root ideas those are based upon, and what is therefore needed in order to aid others to clear them up. Also, anything else that is commonly made a hash of out there, such as infallibility. I may try and write an entire chapter on the magisterium also, since very few people seem even able to use that term in reference to an office, which is what it is, and instead speak utter nonsense such as referring to the magisterium as if it were a set of doctrines, or speak of a "doctrine" as "infallible" etc. Such complete confusion could only be sorted out with an essay, I think (and truly heroic hope that some of them will actually read something about it!). Anyway, all ideas will be welcomed!

The book treats the following subjects. (The page numbers are MS Word pages, so it's around 100,000 words now.)

Prologue
Introduction

Part I – The Ecclesiological Crisis

The Startling Question 9
The Ecclesiological Problem 18
Vatican II, the Abandonment of Divine Religion 29 (This can be read here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1570 )
The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church 38
Heresy and Heretics 56
Unity and the New Church 77
The Unity of the Church after Vatican II 89
The Current State of the Church 99

Part II - The Pope Heretic Thesis

St. Robert Bellarmine and the Five Opinions 121
The First Opinion: A Pope cannot become a heretic. 127
The Origin and Weight of this Opinion 127
The Scope of this Opinion 129
The Basis of this Opinion 137
Against the First Opinion 139
The Second Opinion: If a Pope fell into even internal heresy he would be deprived of the pontificate ipso facto. 144
The Third Opinion: Even if a Pope fell into manifest heresy he would not and could not be deprived of the pontificate. 147
The Fourth Opinion: If a Pope fell into manifest heresy he would not be deprived of the pontificate ipso facto but must be deposed by the Church. 155
The Fifth Opinion: A Pope who fell into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be the visible head of the Church. 164
Canon Law and Ecclesiology 173

Part III – Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sedevacantist Thesis 188
Part IV: Objections Refuted 212

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 28, 2014 5:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:38 pm
Posts: 30
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
John, I don't have any suggestions or input for this project other than to encourage you in its completion. I read the series "The Church Crucified" in the Four Marks as it was published a few years ago and thought it was a wonderful series so I am definitely looking forward to its fuller treatment and completion.

All I can offer you are my prayers.


Wed May 28, 2014 2:27 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
I'm not qualified to offer any specific input other than to say that there appears to be a lot of confusion on traditional Catholic forums about the following topics:
1. Apostolicity - definition and guidelines for determining who has it and who doesn't have it (i.e. who are the successors of the Apostles) - there has to be a way to know that we remain in the Church (subject/bound to legitimate ecclesiastical authority)
2. Indefectibility - definition and guidelines for defending the SV thesis against accusations that it implies a defection of the Church - specifically with regard to perpetual successors of Peter as well as perpetual successors of the Apostles.
3. Papal elections - who is eligible to participate and how we can know if a given election is legitimate or not - there have been more than 6 papal elections since Pope Pius XII died - which of those were legitimate and which were not and why

I will pray for the success of this project. I'm sure it will be a great help to Catholics everywhere.


Wed May 28, 2014 4:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
I look forward to anything composed by you John! It is good to be in the loop!!!

I am interested on who the formal successors of the Apostles are. I know in past interregnums bishops were consecrated (obviously without an expressed papal mandate) and were bishops with habitual jurisdiction.

I would be most interested as to why or why not those Catholics in the Apostolic line of Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer and Mendez are or are not formal successors of the Apostles with habitual jurisdiction over their flocks during the current interregnum. Can this answer be articulated in a de fide manner or must we be satisfied with various opinions based upon sound reasoning and the writings of orthodox theologians that we suppose can be applied to our times?

Additionally, I suppose it might be good to clearly differentiate the disciplinary from the doctrinal aspects in regards to the necessity of the papal mandate.

Like the Siri Thesis, IMO, with each passing year the "bishop hidden in the woods" becomes more and more difficult to swallow - with the "bishop hidden in the Novus Ordo - even more difficult to swallow. :)

I believe it would be good for the home-aloners to have a substantial reason, based upon concrete facts and objective truth if possible, to accept our traditional Catholic Bishops as legitimate options for the sacraments.

Lastly, some who believe our Traditional Catholic Bishops are merely material Bishops, also understand that we cannot avail ourselves of these Bishops apart from danger of death, basing this on canon law which seems to substantiate their conclusion, others claim they are disobedient vagrants and should be avoided at all costs. It is a substantial issue which should be clearly settled if possible or merely laid out as clearly as possible while allowing for the possibility that our traditional Catholic Bishops are in fact the hierarchy if the contrary cannot be sufficiently and objectively repudiated.

Perhaps laying the issue out as Saint Thomas Aquinas would would be good. Make the best case for our traditional Catholic Bishops being formal Apostolic Successors with the implicit mandate and then systematically refute the case if such can be definitively refuted. Obviously if such cannot be systematically refuted such should be acknowledged.

Thank you John, for your excellent work!


Wed May 28, 2014 7:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
I have nothing to offer but my extreme encouragement that you bring the book to fruition. (Easy for me to say!)


Thu May 29, 2014 4:47 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Ah, Mr. Tribbe... you live! :)

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Thu May 29, 2014 8:29 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Thanks all. I'll try and write a chapter on the magisterium and infallibility, and another on jurisdiction.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 30, 2014 1:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
ClemensMaria wrote:
I'm not qualified to offer any specific input other than to say that there appears to be a lot of confusion on traditional Catholic forums about the following topics:
1. Apostolicity - definition and guidelines for determining who has it and who doesn't have it (i.e. who are the successors of the Apostles) - there has to be a way to know that we remain in the Church (subject/bound to legitimate ecclesiastical authority)
2. Indefectibility - definition and guidelines for defending the SV thesis against accusations that it implies a defection of the Church - specifically with regard to perpetual successors of Peter as well as perpetual successors of the Apostles.
3. Papal elections - who is eligible to participate and how we can know if a given election is legitimate or not - there have been more than 6 papal elections since Pope Pius XII died - which of those were legitimate and which were not and why

I will pray for the success of this project. I'm sure it will be a great help to Catholics everywhere.


Thanks CM. I definitely have dealt with papal elections but I might expand it. On Apostolicity - we are definitely in the Church - the real question goes back to Indefectibility and the notion that the entire hierarchy could die out, which I reject. The main thing about this whole subject, I think, is to define the problem properly to begin with. Say, for example, there are two theories, Fr. Cekada's that involves the disappearance of the entire hierarchy (or worse, the notion that Bishops Dolan and Sanborn and a few other irregulars constitute the Successors of the Apostles), and the sedeplenist one which identifies the preachers of error and heresy and false worship via the Novus Ordo as the Teaching Body of the Church. Which one saves Indefectibility? Neither, obviously. So that's the problem. The answer must be that we don't have full information and that's OK. Nowhere does it say that we will always know everything. The Church, that is, the social body of those who are baptised, profess the true faith, share the same sacrifice and sacraments, and are subject to the same hierarchy (which means obeying the general laws promulgated by that hierarchy), still exists and is easily identified. As Jim Larrabee once put it, converts keep finding her, so she can't be impossible to find.

But there are a great number of pitfalls to be avoided, that's for sure! What a mess it is!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 30, 2014 2:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
John Lane wrote:
As Jim Larrabee once put it, converts keep finding her, so she can't be impossible to find.



Yup :D Deo Gratias !!

I don't know how I can help with your book John, but I will offer my prayers for its successful completion.


Fri May 30, 2014 4:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
John Lane wrote:
Thanks all. I'll try and write a chapter on the magisterium and infallibility, and another on jurisdiction.


This book has been the works for quite some time, yes? The impression given is that you have a pretty thought-out and systemic idea of what you're doing. I wouldn't insert a whole lot of things just for the sake of clearing up general confusion, but only inasmuch as certain objections or confusions may arise in relation to your thesis. Maybe that will require a whole chapter on the magisterium, infallibility and jurisdiction. Or maybe it won't.

Investigating the crisis itself requires so much background knowledge that most who are inclined to acquire a working (or better) knowledge of the relevant doctrines and matters involved can do no better than to go back to the books. I would avoid doing unnecessary summaries of doctrines that can be learned just as well from manuals or articles (many of which have been transcribed faithfully to this site) except as they concern your thesis. A suggestion only, of course. But there's hardly anyone whose not confused about something, and would like your book to clarify it for them. Maybe you could write another book afterwards, "A Q&A with John Lane for Those Who didn't Know how to Use the Search Feature on Bellarmine Forums." I jest slightly with that one.


Fri May 30, 2014 1:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 60
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Building on what Mithrandylan wrote, if not proper chapters on magisterium, infallibility, and jurisdiction, please consider the inclusion of that information in appendices. An annotated bibliography at the end would also be nice.

I look forward to the eventual publication!

_________________
Thomas Williams


Fri May 30, 2014 3:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Mithrandylan wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Thanks all. I'll try and write a chapter on the magisterium and infallibility, and another on jurisdiction.


This book has been the works for quite some time, yes? The impression given is that you have a pretty thought-out and systemic idea of what you're doing. I wouldn't insert a whole lot of things just for the sake of clearing up general confusion, but only inasmuch as certain objections or confusions may arise in relation to your thesis. Maybe that will require a whole chapter on the magisterium, infallibility and jurisdiction. Or maybe it won't.

Investigating the crisis itself requires so much background knowledge that most who are inclined to acquire a working (or better) knowledge of the relevant doctrines and matters involved can do no better than to go back to the books. I would avoid doing unnecessary summaries of doctrines that can be learned just as well from manuals or articles (many of which have been transcribed faithfully to this site) except as they concern your thesis. A suggestion only, of course. But there's hardly anyone whose not confused about something, and would like your book to clarify it for them. Maybe you could write another book afterwards, "A Q&A with John Lane for Those Who didn't Know how to Use the Search Feature on Bellarmine Forums." I jest slightly with that one.


I suppose it is enough to provide a bibliography in an appendix which would offer references to existing material that treats these fundamental topics. However, it really depends on who the intended audience is. If the book will be only for trained theologians then summaries of doctrines may be undesireable. But if the intended audience is the average traditionalist Catholic who is trying to make sense of what has happened to the Church in the last 50+ years then I think some summarizing of doctrines is appropriate. If this crisis could be understood easily simply by reading theology manuals then everyone who has done so would be in complete agreement about the nature of the problem. But the reality is that brilliant men have come to disagree about even what would at first appear to be the most fundamental principles touching on the problem. I would like to know how John Lane understands the problem. If that means summarizing some of the doctrines then I am all for it. The better we understand how John Lane has come to his conclusions the better off we will be. I don't know that there is anyone on the earth who has studied this problem in more depth than John Lane. If there is such a one then I hope he writes a book too.


Fri May 30, 2014 4:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
John if I might add something!

It would really be great if you publish the book under the creative commons license, but at the same time have a book people can have their hands on in Lulu etc... That will make it easier to have your work translated into other languages, I can even help pay for some of that if you would like. The book must be translated into spanish, French (especially this one), Italian, Russian and Chinese (Mandarin). Russian and Mandarin I know some people that I can pay to do those particular languages. You can crowdfund if you are interested in getting paid for the intellectual efforts you have put. The ideal is to get something updated into the hands of friends/family/workers that gives them the general gist as to why any other theological conclusion leads to an ecclesiological mess.

This will easily allow to have the greatest viewership, we can put in wikibooks and have a Wikipedia (have you ever seen "Orthodox Wiki", we should do something similar for the Sedevacantist thesis) set up for you. Also have it included in many articles in Wikipedia that deal with Catholicism etc... I.e. it will really make a long term difference in who can be able to read your material.

You might want to make particular chapters on the different claimants (like 3 on Bergoglio :lol: , just to name a few of the errors he has taught when speaking from his office), and how the arguments have changed over time. How time has proven that the SV'ist thesis was on solid ground and not just a bunch of rash individuals who did not like the men sitting in the chair of St. Peter (against the chair of course!). Our prayers are with you John and if you need help proofreading it. Just let us know ^_^, thanks for the hard work. It will pay off in souls! Animas!

+Pax+

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Quote:
"A Q&A with John Lane for Those Who didn't Know how to Use the Search Feature on Bellarmine Forums." I jest slightly with that one.


"Jest"? Do it John! Do it!!! :lol:


Mon Jun 02, 2014 1:15 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Hello all.

If anybody has a copy of The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, could you please double-check for me the following quotes?

“Many things have been said here which were neither prudent, just, nor consistent.” He went on to complain that the Holy Office was continually attacked and held in disdain, and summarised by declaring that “At the Holy Office we are all martyrs! We have already yielded on many points, yet this is the thanks we get! If any changes are to be sanctioned by the Council, they must be made with the greatest prudence.”

That passage is from my book, and the reference I have is to The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, but I can't find the page number! Perhaps I am confused and they came from another book, but if so I have no idea which! I have looked at Alberigo-Komonchak (5 volumes) and found part of it, but not the whole, so it didn't come from there...

Help!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:11 pm
Posts: 28
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
I have a copy of the book. I may be able to find it later today.

John Lane wrote:
Hello all.

If anybody has a copy of The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, could you please double-check for me the following quotes?

“Many things have been said here which were neither prudent, just, nor consistent.” He went on to complain that the Holy Office was continually attacked and held in disdain, and summarised by declaring that “At the Holy Office we are all martyrs! We have already yielded on many points, yet this is the thanks we get! If any changes are to be sanctioned by the Council, they must be made with the greatest prudence.”

That passage is from my book, and the reference I have is to The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, but I can't find the page number! Perhaps I am confused and they came from another book, but if so I have no idea which! I have looked at Alberigo-Komonchak (5 volumes) and found part of it, but not the whole, so it didn't come from there...

Help!


Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
I'm new here so I'm not terribly familiar with your writing style, but my only suggestion would be to make the readability as easy as possible given the complex matters you're dealing with. I know one of the things I appreciate about Fr Cekada's writings is that he makes them simple enough for a lay person to understand.


Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:52 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
John Lane wrote:
Hello all.

If anybody has a copy of The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, could you please double-check for me the following quotes?

“Many things have been said here which were neither prudent, just, nor consistent.” He went on to complain that the Holy Office was continually attacked and held in disdain, and summarised by declaring that “At the Holy Office we are all martyrs! We have already yielded on many points, yet this is the thanks we get! If any changes are to be sanctioned by the Council, they must be made with the greatest prudence.”

That passage is from my book, and the reference I have is to The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, but I can't find the page number! Perhaps I am confused and they came from another book, but if so I have no idea which! I have looked at Alberigo-Komonchak (5 volumes) and found part of it, but not the whole, so it didn't come from there...

Help!


Hi John, I do have a copy of the book and can check, do you know who said that quote? That could help find the page of the quote if it is in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.


Luke


Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:11 pm
Posts: 28
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Unfortunately I cannot find my copy. It is lost in the sea of books I have. I really need to organize it one day. Hopefully someone can find the specific page number for you John.

obscurus wrote:
I have a copy of the book. I may be able to find it later today.

John Lane wrote:
Hello all.

If anybody has a copy of The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, could you please double-check for me the following quotes?

“Many things have been said here which were neither prudent, just, nor consistent.” He went on to complain that the Holy Office was continually attacked and held in disdain, and summarised by declaring that “At the Holy Office we are all martyrs! We have already yielded on many points, yet this is the thanks we get! If any changes are to be sanctioned by the Council, they must be made with the greatest prudence.”

That passage is from my book, and the reference I have is to The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, but I can't find the page number! Perhaps I am confused and they came from another book, but if so I have no idea which! I have looked at Alberigo-Komonchak (5 volumes) and found part of it, but not the whole, so it didn't come from there...

Help!


Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Luke L wrote:

Hi John, I do have a copy of the book and can check, do you know who said that quote? That could help find the page of the quote if it is in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.


Luke


Luke, sorry, the quotes are by Parente.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:49 am
Posts: 29
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Hi John,

Parente is mentioned on pages 28, 166 & 231 of my copy of the Rhine Flows into the Tiber, but neither of those quotes appear on any of those pages.

Dom


Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:53 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 60
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Found the quote on page 64 of Xavier Rynne's Vatican Council II; you can see the page via Amazon's "Look Inside" feature here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1570752931/

Edited to add the following information about the author from the book's back cover:

Quote:
"Xavier Rynne" is the pseudonym of Francis X. Murphy, a Redemptorist priest who taught moral theology at the Academia Alfonsiana in Rome between 1959-1975. Between 1962-1965 he was a peritus, or expert advisor, at the Second Vatican Council. His many books include The Papacy Today, Politics and the Early Church and John XXIII.

_________________
Thomas Williams


Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:19 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Ah, that makes sense, thanks Thomas!

Now I need to find my copy of that... :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
obscurus wrote:
I have a copy of the book. I may be able to find it later today.

John Lane wrote:
Hello all.

If anybody has a copy of The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, could you please double-check for me the following quotes?

“Many things have been said here which were neither prudent, just, nor consistent.” He went on to complain that the Holy Office was continually attacked and held in disdain, and summarised by declaring that “At the Holy Office we are all martyrs! We have already yielded on many points, yet this is the thanks we get! If any changes are to be sanctioned by the Council, they must be made with the greatest prudence.”

That passage is from my book, and the reference I have is to The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, but I can't find the page number! Perhaps I am confused and they came from another book, but if so I have no idea which! I have looked at Alberigo-Komonchak (5 volumes) and found part of it, but not the whole, so it didn't come from there...

Help!


Does someone have the text? Or at the very least some scanned copy of it? The Rhine that flows into the Tiber. I know Radio Cristiandad has it in spanish and that is how I listened to it, its a very nice dramatized audio. I will give it to them, they have made so many wonderful audio works on different topics. I am glad I know spanish :D .

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:44 pm
Posts: 4
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
John, I have not seen much activity regarding your "The Church Crucified" book here in the forums lately, but I have decided to read the draft of it provided on The Four Marks, and do have some thoughts and tips about it, in case you are still interested in publishing such a book. Do you still have such a plan or is it pretty much abandoned?


Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Not abandoned, delayed by countless difficulties! Please feel free to offer criticism or aid.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:44 pm
Posts: 4
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
My extreme apologies for the delay. Two other projects intervened, in and amongst the usual family Christmas stuff.
One of those projects pertained to your book, namely transcribing a copy of it from the issues of The Four Marks, which I now have complete, ready for me to read slowly and carefully review in detail as I planned. I realize that you have probably worked on it since (judging from your table of contents) but this is what I have of the complete book (at least for that point of time).
In the course of that transcription, one observation has shown itself to me, namely that the final part (13 in the original publiclation) regarding Abp. Lefebvre seems quite detachable and pretty much stands on its own as an independent work. I can understand and appreciate the desire (which I share) to put together a kind of "Summa" of everything that we know into one work, but that desire should be restrained in the interest of sharper focus on the precise issues at hand, as promised for the book (any book). Of course, if it were a matter of planning to publish a collection of essays on somewhat related topics, then perhaps the two could be bundled up together along with perhaps some other articles of interest, so as to flesh out a full collection as a publishable book. But even here, the Lefebvre part really is separate and should be treated as just another item in the collection. That's my first opinion, anyway.
For what it's worth, I think there is a great deal of really good material and important points made, with excellent sources and many good quotes. You prove your basic points to the satisfaction of any honest inquirer. The main area where things seem to get rather murky and unclear are where you attempt to discuss the nature of the real Church today, but it will be best to bring up my particular criticisms/thoughts on the various points as they come up in the work itself.
I do have a question for you about this, however. As I do expect to have much to say about it, and to get into a number of doctrinal details, what I am wondering is whether you want all of this done here in the forums or privately between us two in emails, since with forums others will tend to join in and take the conversation in all sorts of directions, distracting both of us. If we do use the forum, I would request that it be strictly moderated to eliminate anything off topic, no matter how interesting, or nice for either of us to hear, or else restrict input to only the two of us, or at least only what few others you can trust not to go leading things off in all manner of directions. Anyway, how would you prefer, forum or private emails?


Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:44 pm
Posts: 4
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
Continuing -
The other intervening project was the completion of (part one of two of) my own book in the topical area. I know you have at times faulted me for not presenting sources for many of my statements. It was not for lack of sources, but because I had long presumed that everyone already knows (basically) what I know, since that is in fact how nearly everyone with a right to a claim of true Catholic sentiment and intention acts, which is to say the general run of all the traditional Catholic faithful and clergy, of all stripes. Our hearts know the truth, but sometimes our minds can get confused. But I have had my nose rubbed in the fact that others (even some clerics!) really don't know the things that are so obvious to me that it is difficult to imagine what it is not to know them. I have long had the advantage (perhaps an "unfair" one) of operating from the standpoint of a certain and very clear, cohesive, and comprehensive ecclesiology solidly based on all the standard manuals, and the dogmatically necessary application of that ecclesiology to our present circumstance.
This "Part One" of my work was basically written to provide that, delving deep into the sources, allowing them to speak at length upon a given doctrine, and then demonstrate by deduction what application the given doctrine has today. (In "Part Two," to be written next I will discuss the various theories, including mine, regarding the doctrinal findings proven in the first part, but much of this will be a regurgitation of what I have written in many other places, but here tailored to mate up with Part One which provides the necessary context.) I believe this work of mine would be of considerable help in sharpening up those areas where your own ideas get rather vague and murky. Please let me know if you would be interested in reviewing it, or at least reading it for your own edification.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:44 pm
Posts: 4
New post Re: The Church Crucified - input requested
In the absence of any response, I will have to post my first detailed response to the discussion page, namely that concerned with the Prologue/Introduction. The object of these parts is to do more than merely introduce the subject, but also to provide the reader with some sense of the direction being taken, and of the response intended. This makes an introduction a very difficult part of any work to write. I have often found that one should seriously revisit an introduction after the rest of the work is complete and compare how well that mates up to what actually ends up being written.
Yet one must get well into the work before my difficulties with the introduction come to be matched let alone exceeded, though they be primarily stylistic and thematic. In particular, there is a very serious problem with comparing our current ecclesial circumstance with an eclipse. I realize that comparison does not originate with you, and doubtless others will think of it as well, for one must grant that there are some comparisons, for example the fact that the divine light always shines, even when substantially obscured by "intervening bodies" that get in its way, be they celestial bodies or mere clouds, or even a frosty glass ceiling. The very first paragraph of the Prologue is fine in its use of the eclipse comparison.
But there are also significant differences, most important being that an eclipse ends of itself. No matter whether we go out in front of our houses and bang away as loud as we can at our pots and pans to "scare away the monster that ate the sun," or go about our business as if nothing has changed or sleep through it or do nothing at all, one of us or all of us working together, it makes absolutely no difference. The eclipse ends of itself right on schedule, supremely indifferent to anything that anyone does. If that had really been the case, then those who say "nothing is wrong" would be of all persons the most right.
The "eclipse" paradigm therefore encourages nothing but passivity on the part of all Catholics. "There is nothing we need do, nor can do, nor ought to do, because the situation will of course right itself right on schedule, regardless." This kind of passivity has already spread far and wide among Catholics, many of whom no longer drive the lengthy distance it takes to get to Mass. Many have come to feel that the restoration of all things in Christ is a hopeless task; even the edification of one's own soul gets utterly lost in the shadow of that great impossibility. The last thing any Catholic should ever be willing to do would be to further that passivity, especially by adding that the voice who says "it's an eclipse; this too shall end" is to be a "voice of reason" speaking calmly (second paragraph of Prologue), as if that's really what you want (it better not be…).
As you correctly mention (but only in passing in paragraph 3 of the Introduction), "the Vatican II revolution is evil and must be resisted." We are in a fight against evil, and one does not effectively fight evil by passively sitting on the sidelines waiting for things to get better of their own accord. Really, are all solutions possible really and necessarily "foolish and dangerous"? If so then the fight is already lost. How about that of Abps. Thuc and Lefebvre? Lefebvre in particular founded seminaries, trained and formed and ordained priests, founded religious orders of men and women, and when the time came he consecrated successors to continue his vitally apostolic ministry. And he didn't do this alone. Think of all those who helped him, who donated as needed so he would have the facilities in Ecône, who sent their sons to be priests, and sons and daughters to be in his religious houses, attended the Masses of his priests, and of the total commitment made on the part of those who entered his seminaries and religious houses, and with all of that, as a community, literally continuing the Church (Abp. Lefebvre, as quoted in Part 1: "From before the destruction, we were chosen by God to continue the Catholic Church")
Would you really have your readers believe that his having taken these actions was "foolish and dangerous"? Again, you say (paragraph 2 of the Introduction), "A major part of the challenge presented by the crisis has been, and remains, to identify the appropriate, Catholic, response to it. Numerous attempts have been made towards this end. Many have been disastrous." Seriously, have any of the responses, even the most extreme, ever been actually more disastrous than succumbing to the Novus Ordo religion? Nothing known has exceeded that danger, only (at most, possibly) matched it.
Yet the encouragement of passivity continues, even after moving beyond the eclipse comparison. Catholics supposedly "agree that what is required in the present circumstances is a humble minimalism. That is, we must address the questions which demand attention, solve the problems which truly demand solutions, and leave aside those matters that are beyond strict necessity; and we must accept humbly that some problems are beyond our capacity to solve." What is a "humble minimalism"? Do as little as possible? And "we must accept humbly…" who is "we"? Everyone? We humble and ordinary laity? And what is beyond our capacity to solve? OK if you're talking about eliminating the Devil, which of course no mere mortal can ever do, but the rest? Granted, some questions might well be resolved later on, perhaps long after the crisis is over, but others will have to be answered in order for us mere mortals to see our way through and out of our current crisis. And sometimes that may require more than the bare raw minimum theoretically necessary.
It continues yet further with "This was certainly the attitude of the late, great, Archbishop Lefebvre, and it is also the mindset of the more responsible independent and sedevacantist priests. The less balanced men of all viewpoints have headed off in various directions, having run out of patience with the Good God." But clearly that wasn't the attitude of the late, great, Archbishop Lefebvre, as he did much to fight the evil, with his seminaries, priests, Society, and succession, to say nothing of his books and speeches which so profusely decorate this whole work (over all, I think, to good effect). "Holding fast is not easy," but (I must add) neither is it enough. Consider the Fifth Commandment of the Church, namely "to contribute for the support of the Church." While that is primarily oriented towards financial giving, the "pay" part of "pay, pray, and obey," it also includes all else that even mere laity can and should do for Holy Mother Church in which we give of our time towards the assistance of the Church, including such things as Altar Societies, Holy Name Societies, visitation societies (such as the Legion of Mary), and so forth, and any number of Lay Apostolates, including your own and mine.
For a disaster so great as we face today, everyone must pitch in. It simply does not do to say (again encouraging passivity and mere waiting on the sidelines), "God’s sweet providence will arrange for the Church to receive her due degree of unity, perfection, and even glory in this world, in accordance with His inscrutable designs, at the time laid down from all eternity as perfectly fitting those designs." Either we, each and all, are part of those designs, or else those designs will never be realized, no matter what God does. Or else if we leave it to others to solve or beat back the evil, what does that make us?
Even worse, such a phrase implies that the Church will "receive her due degree of unity, perfection, and even glory in this world [and therefore not speaking of the next world which is the Glorious Kingdom]" imply that the Church does not receive such a due degree today. This (probably accidently) ends up sounding much like the "pendulum theory" that someday in the future things will just somehow "swing back to normal," perhaps even those of the Vatican-based Conciliar New Church somehow all repenting and rediscovering Tradition, or Tradition just kind of sort of regaining an upper hand with them.
As Fr. Sylvester Berry writes (in The Church of Christ, page 32):
Quote:
Christ instituted the Church for the salvation of all men, and endowed it with certain powers and characteristics necessary for this work. If the Church should lose any one of these necessary qualifications, it would not be capable of doing what Christ intended it to do; in fact, it would cease to be the Church instituted by Him. Moreover, if the Church could fail in any of its essentials, even for a time, it would lose all authority to teach and to govern, because the faithful could never be certain at any time that it had not failed,—that it had not ceased to be the Church of Christ, thereby losing all authority. But an authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect as is evident in churches that reject the claim to indefectibility.

Please note, from the Fr. Berry quote given here above, that "if the Church could fail in any of its essentials, even for a time, it would lose all authority to teach and to govern, because the faithful could never be certain at any time that it had not failed." This pertains to the fallen Vatican organization since it lost many of the Church's essentials, and thereby lost its authority to teach and to govern. Regarding who speak of "the pendulum" someday swinging back into Catholic truth for that fallen organization, the Rock of St. Peter cannot ever be some "pendulum" ever swinging (vacillating) between truth and error, for a "Rock" is called such on account of its immovability. Indefectibility can never merely mean that "the Church" will, one day, return to orthodoxy, but that the Church can never depart from orthodoxy in the first place. Ergo, those who wait for the fallen Vatican organization to "come to its senses" or for "Catholic sensibilities" to come back into vogue with them are waiting in vain for something that legitimately may never occur.
Only a few more things: The sentence "The blind can wait" in the first paragraph of the Introduction somehow strikes me the wrong way, though it is difficult to explain why. I know our Lord once said, "You will always have the poor with you" as a reason that money should be spent on Him personally, but somehow this does not quite rise to the same sort of circumstance; best perhaps to delete the sentence. I like how it next says, "For this reason there is little in these pages about the errors of Vatican II." Yes, the presumed readership is reasonably expected to be familiar with the many errors of Vatican II and resulting therefrom, it is good to clarify that the intention is to move beyond any mere reiteration of those errors and on into what is to be made of it all (very strong statement and worth keeping). Also, everything from Pope Leo XIII onward is truly excellent, no need to change even a word of it.


Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:58 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.