Baptissimus Flaminis et Argumentum ad Verecundiam

Probably one of the most controverted topics of modern times is that of "who can be saved".
Inextricably bound up with this controversy is the topic of the necessity of Baptism and Baptism by desire, brought to the foreground in the 1940's by one Boston priest Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was subsequently excommunicated for disobeying his bishop, who did not approve of his apostolate. I was recently engaged in this controversy over at the Fisheaters Forum, where there were two threads simultaneously touching on this topic one "How do BOB, BOD and invincible ignorance fit in with this de fide dogma?" and "No Salvation without the Catholic Faith", the author of one of which invited me to contribute to these discussions, in view of last year's debate. I thought I'd summarize the controversy here so to better aggregate anticipated future discussions, whether at FE, or elsewhere. That is that Baptissimus Flaminis (the Latin term employed in reference to Baptism by Desire) is not de fide, that is an article of faith to be believed with Divine Faith by all the faithful on pain of anathema.

Probably the first polemic one is likely to encounter is the polemic concerning St. Alphonsus Liguori's assertion that BOD is de fide. This one has two sides to it: argumentum ad verecundiam, and the argument from silence, we will here consider the argument from authority, namely the authority of the theologians and Fathers. Here is the text to which exceptionalists refer:

Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire

(Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.)

"Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood. We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ."

While St. Alphonsus was probably the greatest moral theologian of all time, and demands great respect, for his learning and holiness, and veneration of the Church; his opinion does not make something de fide, he cannot make dogmas, he cannot demand the assent of the faithful, he is only one learned holy individual, and would probably decry this polemic; would he ever take upon himself the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church? I doubt it.

This polemic is one of the most common, and generally, those who employ this polemic argue primarily on the education and reverence of, and for, the authority cited. But they know that learning and sainthood are not enough to "prove" their position. So, they prop this polemic by arguing that the teachings of a theologian or doctor the Church demand the unquestioned assent of the faithful. That Supernatural Faith is required of the individual in the opinions voiced in the works of a theologian or doctor. It sounds very shaky, because it is a shaky polemic, it simply does not sound like a very tenable premise, and they know this, so they immediately have recourse to another authority who says that theologian's works do demand this kind of assent, asserting that these works are intrinsically of the ordinary teaching authority of the magisterium, one of these individuals is the Rev. Anthony Cekada, a very witty and well-read priest whose defense of sedevacantism and the Thuc episcopal lineage have gained him one of the top places as a traditionalist scholar, argues this in his work "Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles". The Rev. refers to a letter of Pope Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich, which states:

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [1]

Rev. Cekada spends an ample amount of time propounding this premise, he says that the consensus of theologians in a matter of faith or morals is a "certain criteria of divine Tradition". [2] Let us take a look at this above papal statement, and extrapolate what it means.

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See..." [3]

The pope is telling the Archbishop, here, that those things which require the divine and supernatural assent of the faithful are not limited to the decrees of ecumenical councils and papal pronouncements, meaning that not all articles of faith which are to be believed by the faithful have been authoritatively proclaimed by the Apostolic See, which means that something does not have to be an ex cathedra pronouncement to be an article of the faith requiring unquestioning assent. This statement in confirming the authority of the ordinary magisterium, rather than the authoritative extraordinary magisterium of the Apostolic See.

"...but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [4]

The Holy Father explains to the bishop that a part of this ordinary magisterial power of the Church is occupied by the constant and universal consensus of Catholic theologians. Which means that those things which have been constantly and universally unquestioningly held as de fide by the fathers and theologians occupies the place of dogma, since such agreement on points of dogma since apostolic times duely deserves to have an integral place in Catholic doctrine.

The reason why the father spends so much of his time setting up this premise is because it is his opinion that Baptism by desire has occupied such a constant and universal consensus in Catholic theology. Up until this point, the father presents a perfectly logical thesis, but it is simply untenable that Baptism by desire has held such an unquestioned place in Catholic doctrine, as will be demonstrated. One point of clarification: This article is not a "bash fest" for Baptism by desire, but simply to position that its place is not amongst the dogmas of the faith, as will be demonstrated in the course of this article.

I will bolster my reply to the argument from authority in pointing out that theologians and Church Fathers have occasionally erred in their theology from time to time. Now anticipating the reply of those who might now discard my position because I have said that a theologian has erred, I want to say that I do not think that I am more learned than any theologian, nor that I am holier than any sainted Doctor of the Church, but simply that I am pointing out a fact of history, some theologians have erred in points of doctrine. But some will argue, perhaps, in response to this that they never erred on an essential point of doctrine, that is that they never erred on any point of doctrine which they considered de fide. I will respond to both of these responses by pointing out that St. Robert Bellarmine, a sainted doctor of the Church, held that Geocentrism was de fide. If this doctor were right, what are the ramifications? How many popes and theologians would be considered heretics or rebels against the de fide teaching of the Church? How many Catholic scientists would be held as heretical or anti-Catholic? And what would this mean for the anti-Catholics who argue that the Church has erred and has opposed true scientific progress?
St. Cyprian of Carthage held that no heretic can validly baptize because heretics are outside of the Church[5], and therefore cannot bring someone into the Church[ 6]. St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest of all the early Church Fathers, held that infants suffer the positive suffering of the damned, not only did he hold this error, but that he held it to be de fide [7], and this position also shared the common consensus of theologians from his time all the way to the time of St. Anslem[8]. St. Thomas Aquinas held that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin[9], which was contrary to the doctrinal definition of Pope Pius IX, and numerous errors have been found in the works of St. Thomas [10]. It is, however, true that St. Thomas' work the Summa was laid on the altar at Trent and declared to be the purest expression of Catholic doctrine, however, it is not true that St. Thomas possessed the charism which the Roman Pontiff alone possesses, which is infallibility in teaching morals and doctrine, while he expressed Catholic doctrine very well, there is no guarantee that his writings were infallible. We do not glory in mentioning these errors, but we bring them only to mind because they prove a point, and that is that the individual opinions of a theologian on a given point of doctrine do not possess the charism of infallibility, nor do individual theologians possess the magisterial authority of the Church in teaching morals and doctrine, and it is a fact of history that certain theologians and Fathers have made errors in their teaching capacity. This means, therefore, that when a theologian tells us that something is de fide, that does not intrinsically make it so, or necessarily signify that it is, or that the teachings of a theologian demand the divine faith and assent of the faithful unconditionally. But let us, for a moment, take the premise of Fr. Cekada and other exceptionalists for granted, and say that the common consensus of numerous theologians is a sign that something is an article of faith. Now, were we to grant this premise, we would have to admit: that St. Augustine's thesis that infants suffer the positive suffering of infants is an article of faith, because it was taught by a theologian, and what's more it was taught by that theologian to be de fide, and it was uncontested for centuries, during which time it held the common consensus of theologians[11]. But, no one is willing to admit this, because it is an error, and if it is an error, and it held such respect and common consensus for so long by so many, then what are we to conclude? We must, therefore, admit that theologians can err and that error can be uncontested for long periods of time, and by a majority of theologians, and that an error has been considered de fide in the past, so that even theologians can be mistaken about what is and is not de fide.
What, then, of Fr. Cekada's thesis that the common consensus of theologians is de fide and the teaching of Pope Pius IX? We take note of Pius's statement again:

"...those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [12]

Notice the bolded text, it says that those things which are considered de fide by the faithful that are considered de fide by theologians are things that must enjoy the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians, not merely the common consensus for a given time, or in a given place, but, always and everywhere. Pius IX's statement is in perfect accord with our above conclusions about theologians, why? Because those things which were so considered de fide by those theologians were not universal and constant, a thing must not exercise merely universality at any given time, but must be universal and constant, it must, therefore, be the consistent consensus of fathers and theologians universally in time, that is held as of the faith commonly and by all, ever since apostolic times. St. Augustine's belief was not consistent with those beliefs on the topic before his time[13] and was later contradicted both by theologians and by councils of the Church[14]. We must conclude, therefore, that the opinion of a saint on a point of doctrine does not make something doctrinal, or else we should have to hold numerous positions which are sometimes at odds with what the Church teaches, which is why Pope Alexander VIII condemned the proposition of the Jansenists that “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”[15], and why Benedict XIV declared that “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching” [16], and Pius XII that the deposit of Faith is authentically interpreted not by "each of the faithful, not even", he says, "theologians, but only", again,"the Teaching Authority of the Church.” [17]

Therefore, Catholics look not to the individual teachings of a holy Doctor or theologian for the authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine, but to "the teaching authority of the Church", exercised either by the infallible capacity of the Pope, or by the consistent universal consensus of the Fathers. Which means that even though St. Alphonsus regarded Baptism by desire as de fide, it might not necessarily be so, nor might it even, necessarily, be true. And of course exceptionalists realize this, and respond that their opinion does hold such a unanimity of the Fathers and theologians. Fr. Cekada proceeds to claim that the doctrine of Baptism by desire does share the common consensus of the theologians, by providing a list of twenty five theologians mainly of the past 300 years, most of them of the last century and a half. He concludes by saying "all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood." However, the rev. forgets here that this unanimity must be constant, stretching back to apostolic times, his list only reflects roughly the last 3 centuries, which represents the faith of those theologians over that span of time, but does not reflect universal anonymity, for there were theologians of the past 3 centuries who did not agree with all of the ones the father cites[18], nor does this list represent the faith of theologians before the 16th century, completely omitting 1400 years of theological consensus, and I hardly call that "unanimous", or universal and constant.
Therefore, Baptism by desire does not meet this criteria needed to reflect doctrinality, and does not, therefore, demand the adherence of Catholics. The father then proceeds to declare that it is heresy against the faith, mortal sin on the part of a Catholic to doubt or deny Baptism by Desire", making heretics of anyone who does not accept it, a conclusion that logically flows from his forgetfulness of the requirement of universality and consistency, but which is flawed, and does not meet the requirement, attaching, therefore, an undue penalty to a theological opinion. It seems also that Fr. Cekada has forgotten that he lacks the authority to attach this penalty, and that to sever communion with a Catholic in matters which are not of faith or government, as Baptism is not, is schism[19]. The question is, thus, is the reverend Cekada ignorant of his schismatic conclusion and subsequent behaviour? I believe he is, but also that he will probably never concede it, nor, perhaps, will the rest of the Catholic world who insists on this conclusion, I expect.




_____________
Endnotes:

[1] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
[2] Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, Thesis 21
[3] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
[4] Ibid.
[5] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
[6] St Cyprian, to Jubaianus (254): “…in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics... This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…” - Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1 P. 593
[7] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910: "This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned". And again: "St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned..."
[8] Ibid.: "After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm"
[9] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, Art. 3, Reply to Obj. 1: "The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”
[10] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 70; 395
[11] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910
[12] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863
[13] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910
[14] Ibid.
[15] Pope Alexander VIII, Errors of the Jansenists, #30
[16] Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749
[17] Pope Pius XII, Humani generis, (#21) on Aug 12, 1950
[18] Among which are: Archbp. Patrick Kenrick, Archbp. Hays, Fr. Rev. Michael Muller, C.S.S.R., Dr. Ludwig Ott, St. Francis De Sales, St. Charles Borromeo and others.
[19] Catholic Encyclopedia, Article "Heresy", sec. II, Vol. VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company: "Schismatics... are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other... And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not... communicate with the members of the Church...."; St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I: "The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head"

St. Patrick and the King

In the Country of Neyll, a King Echu allowed St. Patrick to receive his beloved daughter Cynnia as a nun, though he bewailed the fact that his royal line would thereby end without issue. The King exacted a promise from Patrick not to insist that he be baptized, yet to promise him the heavenly kingdom. Patrick agreed, and left the matter in the hands of God.
Sometime later King Echu lay dying. He sent a messenger to St. Patrick to tell him that he desired Baptism and the heavenly kingdom. To those around him the King gave an order that he be not buried until Patrick came. Patrick, then in the monastery of Saballum, two days' journey away, knew of the situation through the Holy Spirit before the messenger even arrived. He left to go to the King, but arrived to find Echu dead. St. Patrick revived the King, instructed him, and baptized him. He asked Echu to relate what he had seen of the joys of the just and the pains of the wicked, so that his account could be used for the proving of Patrick's preaching. Echu told of many other-world wonders and how, in the heavenly country, he had seen the place Patrick had promised him. But the King could not enter in because he was unbaptized. ...Then having received the Eucharist, he fell asleep in the Lord.

[Story related in "Saints who raised the Dead", by Fr. Albert J. Hebert, S.M., pp. 195-196]

Catholic Economic Restoration: Distributism in Action

As John Médaille from The Distributist Review pointed out recently, various new endeavors are in preparation for the coming year.

We hinted in the past about a future conference. Now we are working in earnest to secure a site and date for the event. This will be a full day conference with eight speakers who have generously offered their time and support. Please return to our site for updates as developments unfold.

A Grassroots Movement Rising…Again

The original Distributist League initially met at the Devereux pub and spawned 24 like-minded branches across Great Britain within a single year.* These in turn hosted lectures and conferences, and coordinated with complimentary organizations such as Fr. McQuillan’s Catholic Land Association.

In recent years, many have made efforts to re-introduce Distributism and, as a result, discussions surrounding the topic have been increasing on the world-wide-web. These consequences are not negligible. Book publishers, online and print journals, lectures, universities, and television programs have either touched on the topic or have dedicated themselves to it.

Short-term Goals

We would like to notify our readers of the following proposed objectives we will meet:

1. The establishment of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to educate society about and in support of Distributism. This apostolate will engage in the dissemination of educational materials, semi-annual lecture series, and conferences.

2. A chronicle in print is in development with the intent of discussing solutions to our current global dilemmas. Conceptually the magazine will concentrate on both the practical application of Distributism, as well as analysis of various movements conformes with Distributist thought. This journal will include some of the writers featured on our online archive and debates with capitalists and socialists will also be welcome.

3. Fund-raising will play a supporting role towards keeping our costs down for events and all materials. All profits will be used toward our described efforts.
You Can Have an Impact

Send us an email and let us know whether you would like to be contacted with updates and information about said events. We will not release your information to any third parties and you will not have to provide your name if you desire not to do so. Just send us an email that you wish to subscribe and please provide us with your country of residence, city and state/province. This will assist us when preparing future events.

Ultimately we would like to lecture across the globe, so please support this effort by being a part of the mailing list

Establishing a database will allow us to quantify the existing support for these ventures, and inform our readers when and where they will take place.

Please contact us at:
societyfordistributism@gmail.com **

Country of residence:
City:
State/Province:

Sending us your information will be invaluable in our efforts to coordinate these goals

Servire Deo Regnare Est!

Richard Aleman The ChesterBelloc Mandate *According to John Michael Thorn’s book, An Unexplored Chapter in Recent English History, these branches were founded between 1926 and 1927. **Upon the establishment of a non-profit, we will notify our subscribers of our new email address.

New Project: On Modernity and Vatican II

My current project is that of a study in modernism and Vatican II. Most recently, in this project, has been an introduction to the philosophies of Vatican II, and the oath against Modernism, which are to be followed by a short history of the council and a small study of its philosophy and doctrine, accompanied by some observations of the great pontiffs of the 19th century on these philosophies.
This project is designed to bring about a general realization of what the Church faced leading up to Vatican II and at then at the outset of the Traditionalist Catholic movement. This project is the fruit of dozens of hours of study and exegesis of Vatican II and modernism, from the principle works "Vatican Council II", by Xavier Rynne; "History of Vatican II", by Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak; "Pope Council And World: The Story Of Vatican II", by Robert Blair Kaiser; "Vatican II: The Theological Dimension" by Anthony D. Lee; "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" by Pope St. Pius X; "Lamentabili Sane" by Pope St. Pius X; "Humani Generis", by Pope Pius XII; and numerous other encyclicals, studies, and articles. It is hoped that this study would shed some light on some of the ideals which Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Thuc, and others dealt with, and to procure more knowledge about the philosophies of Vatican II and the Modern Roman Church.

But for the Tome I have something else in mind, namely bringing in more resources for study and exegesis for some of these projects which are available online, since I can't link off-line material, and the posting of several essays which I've been composing, such as things on Americanism, the salvation issues [which might end up at VITW, but I haven't decided yet], on the matter of the motu masses and traditional masses, on the matter of holy orders and Vatican II, on the matter of linguistics and the history of the languages of Christendom. And of course I still have more topics for Europe and the Faith which need some working on, as time allows, not to mention the pitiful design and layout of the site, and the ridiculous lack of material present there. And I hope to be posting some of these things in the coming weeks.

Update and Apology

I know there's really no excuse for taking 3 months to update this site with a few posts, for those maybe half-dozen readers who actually waste enough time to peruse this page, though I am quite vexed, in that I have simply not had the time to devote to it, being preoccupied with off-line issues which urgently called for my attention, though I do apologize. But recently I've tried to make an effort to return and update some of my sites periodically. I've recently updated Europe and the Faith's bibliography and interface and links lists to ease navigation of those and sort for relevancy, and have done some of that here as readers will probably notice as they peruse the side-bar with a few new sections of links to online resources and sites. But VITW, being the popular, has called the most attention, and as I have added one or two works there over this time span and also updated its side-bar somewhat.

I've been promising people posts on this or that issue, and basically got a start to most of them, and then was called away for other matters, and so now I'm in the middle of trying to draft those and update these sites as time permits. Indeed, this one's articles have been bawling for revision for some time, including the most recent posts which are formatted in an argumentative style, but which are going to require a more expository format, basically needing an overhaul, and several of them need updates and edits. But ever since I've launched these it seems I've bitten off more than I can chew as the amount of research for what these sites cover occupies more time than I actually have, trying to keep so many hot potatoes jugglying in the air: debating Protestants, starting periodicals, writing articles, launching businesses [authorship is basically just a hobby], hosting blogs, writing histories, studying for the above, etc. In addition to which is my on-going education.
I hope visitors to this website will forgive me for how long the previous post stayed up, with nothing replacing it until now (although changes and updates were made to other sections of the site and to others). I’ll try to update "The Tome" much more frequently from here on in.

Protestants as Christians?

Very recently, I was engaged in a discussion on the distinction between formal and material heresy which became involved with the question of whether or not modern day Protestants are material or formal heretics, as to whether or not they were to be truly designated as "Christian" or part of the Church by virtue of their baptism.

St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking of heresy, said: "Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (4, 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.
Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine." [1]

St. Thomas begins by defining that heresy and faith are acts of the will, when it [the will] assents to an article of the faith [the assent of the will to the doctrine of Christ, i.e. faith], de fide [of the faith, and article of or pertaining to the doctrine of the Christian religion], or fails to do so [heresy: the failure to willingly assent to one or more articles of the faith of the Christian religion, here a distinction can be made, of the first, what is being treated upon, is willful failure to assent to the truths of religion, "Formal" or "manifest" Heresy, the second, the unconcious failure to do so, termed "Material Heresy"].

St. Thomas goes on to make this distinction: "Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ [formal and willful heresy]: and such a man has an evil will [what we today term as "bad will"], so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews [therefore a kind of unbelief which is mortal and severs Christian communion by the failure to assent to its communion]. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.
Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas." [- The Definition of heresy] ... As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff."[2]

Now, our discussion went somewhat like this:

My opponent cited Vatican II in referencing his belief that Protestants in current times could not be considered formal heretics, and thus outside the Church, whereas I argued that modern day Protestants do fit this definition and thus are formal heretics, separated from the Church, the Church of Christ, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.

Vatican II: "For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."[3]

And Josef Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, continues in this belief:

“Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.” [4]

Now, I'll get into this statement later (See this post), but it serves well enough to establish the objection which the opposition positioned.

My argument went somewhat like this:

The Catholic Church is one Church of the faithful, not of heretics; heretics are outside the Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church..."

That all members of the Church must obey the Holy See:

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Therefore they are in dangerous error who think that they can attach themselves to Christ the Head of the Church, without adhering faithfully to his Vicar on earth."

Heretics do not profess properly and truthfully all that the Church has taught in every last detail, word and intention.

I Lateran Council: "If ANYONE does not profess properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be anathema."

Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.

St. Cyprian: "He is no Christian who is not in Christ's Church." (Epistle to Antonianus," 52)

St. Augustine - If anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not a Catholic. ("On Heresies," no.88; PL 42)

St. Peter Canisius: "Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. " (St. Canisius Catholic Cate-chism, Dillingen, 1560, Question no. 1)

Fr. Michael Müller, C.SS.R., "The Catholic Dogma," 1888: "What Protestant Belief In Christ is - .(Protestants) never had any divine faith in Christ. 'He who does not believe all that Christ has taught,' says St. Ambrose, 'denies Christ himself.' (In Luc. c. 9.) 'It is absurd for a heretic,' says St. Thomas Aquinas, 'to assert that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a man is to give our full assent to his word and to all he teaches. True faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ and in all he has taught. Hence he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation has no more the doc-trine of Jesus Christ and of his Church, than the Pagans, Jews and Turk's have.' 'He is' says Jesus Christ, 'a heathen and publican.'"

Tertullian: "...Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one—that is, the same—Christ."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of Doctrine proposed by Her authoritative Magisterium.”

That the view of Vatican II and Josef Ratzinger is a novelty.

Pius IX, Letter from the Holy Office, September 16, 1864: "It [this novelty] can be summed up in this proposition, that the true Church Jesus Christ is made up of one part Roman Church, established and propagated throughout the world, and one part the schism of Photius, and the Anglican heresy, both of which have, with the Church of Rome, one same Lord, one same faith, one same baptism."

Leo XIII, Officio sanctissimo, December 22, 1887: "But he who in his manner of thinking and acting would separate himself from his shepherd and from his Sovereign Pastor, the Roman Pontiff, has no further bond with Christ: “He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke X: 16). Whoever is estranged from Christ does not reap; he scatters."

Schismatic and heretical sects, then, do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church, because they hold to false doctrine and are not in union with Rome. They are not “united to the Catholic Church by very close bonds.”

Therefore schismatic sects and heretical sects have no further bond with Christ. They are not in “partial communion” with the Catholic Church, and which are part of the Church of Christ. In fact, they scatter against Christ in their activities.

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith: and he who refuses to hear the Church must be considered, by the order of the Lord, as a heathen and a publican. And they who are divided by reasons of faith or of government cannot live in this one Body, and in its one Divine Spirit."

The opposition returned that Protestants were not removed from the Church by virtue of the notion that they were merely material heretics and thus did not fall under the sentence of excommunication imposed by the Apostolic See.

... As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff."

I proceeded to point out the fact that most Protestants obstinately defend their error and seek to undermine, distort, ignore, or attack the truth of the Catholic religion rather than seek the truth about it with a willingness to mend their opinion, and thus fall under the category which Aquinas lays forth:

"...because he is unwilling to assent to Christ [formal and willful heresy]: and such a man has an evil will [what we today term as "bad will"], so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews [therefore a kind of unbelief which is mortal and severs Christian communion by the failure to assent to its communion]. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas."

The opposition simply denied this:

I simply deny that most Protestants "refuse" to be informed. ...they just are not opposed to learning the truth, no matter what you may think about it.

But then goes on to contradict himself, agreeing with me in an attempt to disagree with me:

...because of their errors, they do not believe that the Catholic Church has something to say to them about their salvation. And from their perspective, based in sola scriptura, there is no reason for them even to suspect that the Church has something to say to them that they need to hear. If they argue with you on the Internet and refuse to listen to what you say, it's not because they are not interested in the truth. It's because they think that they already have it, and that you are going to be contradicting it, and consequently they see no reason to listen to you. I think that they are mistaken of course, but that's not the point. They don't.

If their refusal to assent to the truth does not constitute obstinacy, then what does? This person says that no matter what, no one who believes that they are right can be truly called a heretic, which means that there is no such thing, for we are all excused of it [heresy] if we believe that we are right (See Also) [which is error, for all heretics think they are right, that's why there are heretics, yet who does not know that those heretics in the past have been condemned as such, and excommunicated, and expelled from the Church either by solemn declaration or by process of Divine or ecclesiastical law?]. It is that they trust not God and His truth, but themselves.

"though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. " - Aquinas on Heresy

"But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme (truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them" (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. "You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel" (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). [5]

Thus, for this reason, modern day Protestants, who reject Catholic truth and refuse to assent to it, can truly be called heretics and thus not Christian nor members of the Catholic Church (See also).

But this is not the only leg which my argument stood on. The second pin was that Protestants were not Christian and were outside the Church because they were divided from the Church in both faith and government, that not only were Protestants heretics, but even if the heresy were cut from the equation, they would still be schismatics in one sense in that they reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff, involving heresy, and refuse communion with him.

Schism: Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. [6]

Pius IX, Letter from the Holy Office, September 16, 1864: “they are separated from the communion of the Church who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See.”

According to Pope Pius IX and the teaching of the Church those who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See are not in communion with the Church. They are cut off, severed, excommunicated for being schismatics by operation of Divine Law. Therefore, for this reason Protestants are not fellow Christians or members of Christ's Church, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore, those PRotestants who were baptized, thus made members of the Catholic Church, are separated from the Catholic Church by refusing to acknowledge and accept the authority and power of the Apostolic See.

Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: "No one is in the Church of Christ, and no one remains in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts with obedience the authority and power of Peter and his legitimate successors."

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Therefore they are in dangerous error who think that they can attach themselves to Christ the Head of the Church, without adhering faithfully to his Vicar on earth."

Now, so far we've covered the fact that Protestants are severed from the Church by
1. Refusal to assent to the truth, constituting obstinate heresy.
2. Refusal to acknowledge the authority and primacy of the Apostolic See.

However, there is still one more reason why modern day Protestants are separated from the true Church of Christ, a second kind of Schism, that of refusing communion with other Christians, which Protestants do every day.

Schismatics... are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members... therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not... communicate with the members of the Church subject to him [the Roman Pontiff]. [7]

Therefore, Protestants are severed from the Catholic Church in a three-fold manner, Schism from the Apostolic See, Schism with other Christians, and obstinate heresy, then there can be no doubt that modern day Protestants are indeed not Christians and are separated from the Church, falling under the sentence of excommunication, and/or anathema.

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

"...can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? - without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is "that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived" (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ...But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them" (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. "You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel" (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

"For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino. "The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head" (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. "We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism" (writes St. Jerome): "heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church" (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5)

Hence the teaching of Cyprian, that heresy and schism arise and are begotten from the fact that due obedience is refused to the supreme authority. "Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). - Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9, June 29, 1896.

______________
Endnotes:

[1] Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis Q. 11, A. 1
[2] Ibid.
[3] Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, # 3
[4] The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88
[5] Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9, June 29, 1896.
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia, Article "Heresy", sec. II, Vol. VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company, - Newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
[7] Ibid.

St. Martin and the Catechumen

Martin restores a Catechumen to Life.

"...At this time a certain catechumen joined him, being desirous of becoming instructed in the doctrines: and habits of the most holy man. But, after the lapse only of a few days, the catechumen, seized with a languor, began to suffer from a violent fever. It so happened that Martin had then left home, and having remained away three days, he found on his return that life had departed from the catechumen; and so suddenly had death occurred, that he had left this world without receiving baptism. The body being laid out in public was being honored by the last sad offices on the part of the mourning brethren, when Martin hurries up to them with tears and lamentations. But then laying hold; as it were, of the Holy Spirit, with the whole powers of his mind, he orders the others to quit the cell in which the body was lying; and bolting the door, he stretches himself at full length on the dead limbs of the departed brother. Having given himself for some time to earnest prayer, and perceiving by means of the Spirit of God that power was present, he then rose up for a little, and gazing on the countenance of the deceased, he waited without misgiving for the result of his prayer and of the mercy of the Lord. And scarcely had the space of two hours elapsed, when he saw the dead man begin to move a little in all his members, and to tremble with his eyes opened for the practice of sight. Then indeed, turning to the Lord with a loud voice and giving thanks, he filled the cell with his ejaculations. Hearing the noise, those who had been standing at the door immediately rush inside. And truly a marvelous spectacle met them, for they beheld the man alive whom they had formerly left dead. Thus being restored to life, and having immediately obtained baptism, he lived for many years afterwards; and he was the first who offered himself to us both as a subject that had experienced the virtues of Martin, and as a witness to their existence. The same man was wont to relate that, when he left the body, he was brought before the tribunal of the Judge, and being assigned to gloomy regions and vulgar crowds, he received a severe sentence. Then, however, he added, it was suggested by two angels of the Judge that he was the man for whom Martin was praying ; and that, on this account, he was ordered to be led back by the same angels, and given up to Martin, and restored to his former life. From this time forward, the name of the sainted man became illustrious, so that, as being reckoned holy by all, he was also deemed powerful and truly apostolical."

- St. Suplitius Serverus, The Life of St. Martin D'Tours

Catholic Dogma and Relativity

Is the truth relative to each man's outlook on the world? Does one truth vary depending on who you ask? Ask your average protestant about a truth of scripture and they will demean your proposed verse as simply your interpretation, making what the Bible says a matter of relativity. In such a case, the Bible could endorse killing and other such things depending on who you ask, thus, can it be so that the doctrine of Christ is actually relevant to the perception of the individual?

Take John 3:5 for example, there are many different ways that it can be taken, but is what this verse is saying relative depending on who you ask? Does not this verse actually say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Ghost one cannot enter heaven, or is that just an individual interpretation of what that verse really says? Well, in the modern Protestant world, we can see that what this verse really says is, relative to the Protestant that one asks, for one it means, that we are cleansed of our sins and are made a Christian, for another it merely symbolizes this, thus, which one of these is the universal truth, which how can one correctly understand this statement of truth uttered by God Himself? Is there really a truth out there that can be seen and heard by the individual?

To clarify: there are some truths, like, my car is in my garage, it is true now, but after I take it somewhere it is not true that it is in the garage, thus, this is a truth that is relevant to the actions of an individual, that somethings that are true now, might not necessarily be true tomorrow. This is a transitory truth, it is something that is temporarily true, or true under certain circumstances, but not necessarily universally true. Our question is, is this kind of philosophy applicable to all things, including religion? There are some, especially modern philosophers, who will say "yes, your truth is your truth, but it is not mine, I have a different truth than you." Indeed, I do have a different truth than these pseudo philosophers, for in the world that I live in, there are some truths are always true, that cannot cease to be true because I am different, and have different experiences than someone else, for me 2+2 always equals four, no matter how many times one, nor no matter who, adds it up; it is a universal truth, it is a persistent truth, one that is not limited to any individual interpretation. The fact is that it is impossible for truth to be relative, or varying from person to person. If it's truth, then it is truth for all, not just some. But actual belief in the Truth does indeed vary from person to person, it is our understanding of certain truths that can vary between different persons, yet the truth still remains the same, it endures. That two and two is four is a universal truth. It has always been true whether humanity has known it to be or not; and will always be true. The notion that, just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for me is logically impossible. If it's true Truth, then it will be true for all. It can't change because it is an enduring truth, it is something that is not relative to one's understanding of mathematics. In another manner, water always boils at a set temperature, it is true for all persons, and so, no matter who boils the water, it will always boil at the same temperature as it would for anyone else, these are some of the the persistent truths that make the world work. These kinds of truths that we live by everyday, and are applicable to all under all circumstances, are the truths that endure, truths that are always true, and are true for everyone at every time, a persistent truth. That two and two are four, and the temperature at which water boils are these kinds of truths upon which one can trust to solve an equation and to boil a pot of stew.

But what of religion, is religion transitory or persistent truth. Ask Your local Protestant pastor and he may tell you in so many words that it is the first, and then later on tell you flat out that it is actually the latter, but not until he has already proven to you why it is the first; he is a relativist, his understanding of a book, he elevates to be an enduring truth, even though he will admit that his understanding of this "enduring truth" is actually relative to the understanding of the individual, in other words, Baptism might be necessary for all for salvation at all times, this the Protestant might concede, but then, will tell you that someone can have a completely different understanding of that which completely redefines it to mean something completely different, making what he said was eternal enduring truth relative to how one wants to see that particular issue, making in fact transitory, or relative, and not enduring nor universal. The Protestant will do the latter because of his belief in private interpretation of the work from which the rule of baptism is drawn, he must submit his own understanding, and the text itself, to the rule that he and others accept as truth, but then relative, that the truth of the Bible is relative to the judgment and understanding of the individual, he will submit this truth of this work to that rule, because that rule is the reason why he has no magisterium to follow, why he rejects an enduring and persistent truth given by God Himself, which is not relative, and thus would not conform to the way he wants this truth to operate. He will say that the Bible is contained of persistent and enduring universal truths, and then say that they are all relative to how the individual wants them to be, thus, these "truths" of the Bible, such as of the necessity of Baptism, might be true for the pastor, but not for someone else in the congregation, or rather some other pastor, the truth of that verse of the Bible is relative, then in the eyes of the Protestant, because it is not actually an eternal truth, but relative and transitory.

Jesus Christ said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away", so, in essence, we have an assurance from the God-man Himself that the Christian religion that He founded is based on persistent and eternal truths, not transitory earthly truths, that pass away, and are relevant to certain circumstances. Quite simply, then, Protestantism is not contained of nor following, the words of Christ Jesus, because Protestants follow relative transitory truths, and not the objective universal truths of God. The nature of Christian dogma is that of an enduring eternal truth uttered by God. One can either build his religion or philosophy based on the sands of transitory things, or he can build his foundation on the rock of the persistent truths of the universe that always were and always will be. The Pastor, then, does not have in his own philosophy the enduring truth of Christian dogma.

This philosophy of relativity in religion is based on the fact of whether or not some one actually believes these truths is relative. By this it is meant that one person may believe that 2 + 2 = 4 and another may not; but either way, we know that the one that believes it to be true, is indeed correct in his belief, and the other is not. Applying this to religion, we come to the same conclusion. However, in religion, we don't have the same sense of understanding the truth. Well, what do I mean? Well, let me explain by using gravity as an example. Now, it is a universal truth that gravity exists, we all know this, it is an enduring "persistent" truth, but what about relativity? Gravity is always acting upon us, whether we like it or not. Now, suppose someone does not believe that gravity is true. Under the terms set forth by the relativist pseudo philosophers just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for someone else, thus, if the said person were to actually disbelieve in gravity, then gravity would have no effect upon him, because it is relative to whether or not this person accepts it as their truth. Now, were that person to go the tallest building they can find and jump from its heights, according to their belief system, since they don't believe in gravity, they won't fall to their instantaneous death. Obviously this is not so. If one were to jump from a high place, they would fall to their death because they are bound to the universal "persistent" truth of gravity, which is a persistent truth, applicable to all regardless of whether or not they believe it its reality; so much for relativity. Obviously, truth is not subject to the limited understanding of the individual, whether someone understands, or believes, a certain truth does not alter is truthfulness, does not lessen its effects in reality, truth is not subject to one's understanding of it.

Likewise, if the religion founded by Christ is such a universal and persistent truth then regardless of what all others believe, all will be held accountable to this truth, because, like gravity, it is applicable to all. The truths set forth by God apply to all men who are made subject to the laws of God, thus, they are responsible for knowledge and practice of these Truths. Such is the truth of John 3:5, as it says all men must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to enter the Kingdom of heaven, it is a universal truth applicable to all men, who are all subject to this fact, this eternal Truth of God, all men are bound to observe and keep this observance, otherwise, the sentence is being barred the kingdom of Heaven, for the rejection, or failure to observe this Truth, is the failure to observe and obey the authority and Divinity of the God Who instituted it, it is to show disobedience to, or disregard for the the Divinity and authority of God.

Since we believe that Jesus Christ is God made man, then indeed, we should do as He commanded, and obey all things that He commands, thus, it is much more logical to follow this course of action, than the objective relativist view that God may not exist for someone else, and according only to one. Now, answering the Protestant relativity of truth. According to the 33,000 different Protestant sects, He [God] wants us to proclaim His only Son, Jesus Christ, as lord and savior, and all is fine, nothing more, nothing less; and even there there is no real agreement, since this only according to the relative interpretation of a book that can be obscure in one or more areas, thus they have no real agreement on the truth, what is objectively true, and what is actually false, they don't really have the concept of truth. Protestant proclaim this, and claim that it is eternal persistent truth, but then will submit that to the private judgement of the individual Protestant. This is the root of the relativist philosophy, for it is the concept that one persons' interpretation of the scriptures is as good another, thus, the whole relativist philosophy that is destroying Christianity now is actually drawn from the Lutheran and Zwinglian philosophy of private interpretation, made more abstract and obscure via sola scriptura. The only thing that unites them is their disdain and hatred for the Catholic Church.

Now, continuing with our previous line of thought concerning persistent truth, since there is a universal truth of God, we need to know which Truth is of God; the following quote from St. Alphonsus Liguori will serve our purpose in discerning which church contains the persistent truths about God:

"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church ... Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches ... only one can be the true one ... and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church ... it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) ... In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her ... This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)"

Clearly, then, if indeed the Roman Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, then what it teaches is applicable to ALL, being universal and persistent truths, this Church being the one true Church then is true for all, and thus, since in it alone is salvation found, as a persistent truth, it is true for everyone, not just those who believe. The Truths of this Church are then universal and persistent truths applicable to all, this is the nature of Catholic Dogma.

Conspiracy Theory

We seem to always be hearing about conspiracy theories these days, that there is a conspiracy behind this, or there is a conspiracy behind that. A couple of months ago, I was at home with nothing to do, and found a movie titled "Signs", which was one of Mel Gibson's movies, and at one point there sitting on the coutch Gibson asks another character "is it possible that there are no coincidences?
Are there really no accidents, or do you believe that people just get lucky?" or words to that effect.
This is a significant point because so much hinges on whether or not there is a purpose behind many of the events that happen in our world. The point being that if we really believe in the supernatural, if we really believe that there is a God who created all things, and that there is a devil seeking the ruin of souls and the corruption of all things, can we really believe that anything is vain, or happens for no purpose? Is it possible that everything just happens for the sake of happening?

Alluding once again to popular culture, there comes to mind the series "The X-files" with two principle characters Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, where Mulder is always convinced that something behind the scenes is taking place, and is always contending with Skully's sckeptical outlook, that there really is a supernatural, but that Skully is always looking for some reason to explain the unexplainable. Strangely enough, if one took that sckeptical outlook and applied it to everything, one would eventually come to believe in a supernatural, that there is a reason for everything, rather, that if Skully took her skepticism far enough, that she would go full circle and end up with Mulder's unquestioning belief in the supernatural. If one believed that there is a reason for everything, that everything can be explained logically, that the most logical thing to do would be to form an logical explanation, and skully simply did not make it the other side of the circle sooner becaue she would not accept Mulder's explanation of the events, even though she herself could find no logical explanation, she defied her own logic in that she would not accept the logic that was present in Mulder's views, she was being illogical because she would not hear logic, if for the sole reason that she would have to admit error and concede to that which she refused to accept.

There is currently in the world two types of people: those who believe in a reason for everything, and those who believe that everything is chaotic and serves no purpose.
There are those who believe in a God, or gods, who believe that that divine entity, and/or entities, created all of that which surrounds us. Then there is he who believes in no God, or any entity, and that everything just naturally comes together as it has and will continue in that fashion.
Those who believe in a God, who has a purpose for this creation, must believe in a conspiracy, a scheme for all of creation, that there is a reason for all of the things that occur in this world.
Here we will focus on the one who believes in God and a reason for all that has happened.

The most common belief of a creator that we are bound to run into in this age in the USA is that of Christianity. In Christianity we believe that there is an omnipotent God who created all things, and that this God also created beings called angels. They believe that a certain one of these desired to be like the Creator, and thus led some of these beings against the Creator.
Christians call this being the devil, and those mutinous angels demons, thus illustrating two opposing forces - those of the Creator [God from here on] and those of the devil. Those who believe in Christianity and the existence of this devil believe in a conspiracy, and they must or cease to be a Christian for the sole purpose that they would not longer fit the definition of such, that this devil conspired against God and His designs.

Presently there are many conspiracy theories, and most of them are pretty far-fetched, compiled by curious minds who inquire into certain events and conclude that such events occurred because someone willed that events should happen in that manner - a conspiracy theory, it's wacky because they attempt like Skully to insert their own opinions and logic into the theory to help it make sense, but then, only to themselves, thus, the larger number of them are senseless to the majority of mankind, and are probably not true for the reason that there are better explanations, and ones that better be labelled a theory because it can be tested, otherwise, it could only be called a "conspiracy hypothesis", because it is only a theory when it can be tested, and also usually requires a precedent, that the thing in question actually has happened before, helps to substantiate a theory, and can thus provide a basis for such a theory, because since history repeats itself, could happen again, or rather, could be happening again. But mainly, one must try to stick with the one that is most credible, or that really can be tested, and when fully considered leads back to the source of all things, if it is good, as all truth must, and that is God, otherwise, if it is erroneous, one can be almost certain that it proceeds from another, more ominous entity.

God created Man, and placed him in a place of Paradise with Himself, and gave man free will.
In this paradise, at some point, the devil appeared and tempted man to disobey God, it was a conspiracy, the devil told man that God had lied, and that man would not die if he disobeyed God, and that there was a conspiracy against him to take away his liberties, to restrict him. In fact it was the other way around, it was the devil who was conspiring against God, using man, His creation, as one of his tools for such. For man's disobedience God cast man from this paradise and into the world that we know now. Thus any Christian who believes in the above, as many do, and also in the devil must believe in a conspiracy theory since it necessarily follows that all events happen because one of the two above described forces are in some way or another involved in the unfolding of events in this world.

God loved his creation, and desired to redeem man from his fate, and sent His Son [Christ from now on] as a redeemer to redeem man from the dominion of the devil. Christ died for the salvation and redemption of man from the devil and his realm, and founded a Church through which all men could now come to obtain the benefits of this redemption. The devil continued in his mutiny against God and His Church. so now we still have conspiracies, the conspiracy of the devil to use all of his means against the Church of Christ [see the St. Michael Prayer].

There are certain societies and groups who have assaulted, and continue to assault, this Church, most notably the Freemasons. It is believed that there was a freemasonic conspiracy to subvert the Church from within, and during the reign of Leo XIII it became known that some of these Freemasons had worked their way all the way to the top of its hierarchy. On October 9, 1958, Pope Pius XII died, and soon a conclave began that would decide the identity of the next Pontiff. This is the crux of this conspiracy, that these masons who had worked their way to the top of the hierarchy would work to place one of their men on the Apostolic See, who would then work to destroy the Church from within. A few days later an event happened that remains controversial, but that it was announced that a Pope had been chosen by the conclave, and then that they were unsure, and then again the announcement that a Cardinal had been chosen, and then again uncertainty as the color of smoke changed again.
Finally, not long after that, a man walked out onto the balcony attired as a Pope who took the title of John XXIII. The conspiracy was that a man had been chosen Pope who was not Roncalli, and was forced to abdicate, and that another Cardinal, Cardinal Siri, had been elected instead of Roncalli.

Roncalli [John XXIII] convoked an ecumenical Council which opened in 1962, and this council worked many changes in the Church, including the sacraments, the interpretation of dogma, a complete overhaul of everything was committed by this council. The conspiracy was that Siri and the Council were part of a Freemasonic plot against the Church, to destroy it from within, and that John XXIII, and his successors were not valid Popes of the Catholic Church, but anti-Popes elected in an uncanonical fashion. During the implementation of these changes by the Council, certain men in the curia saw the contradictions with traditional Catholic doctrine, and drew up a critical study of the new liturgy invented by the council, that study was called the Ottaviani Intervention, named after the principle signer Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.
This is questioned and dismissed by the majority of people nowadays because it is what it is - a Conspiracy Theory. But the point is that it is questioned by those who believe, those who believe in a God and in a devil, but it seems ludicrous to them because it is a conspiracy theory.
We live in a world that does not believe in conspiracy theories, a world that does not believe in God, or in a devil, and thus, they dismiss anything of the sort, including evil and conspiracies.
The idea that the Vatican could ever fall under the control of the Freemasons seems so unlikely to them that it is simply not possible, but to dismiss such is to dismiss the concept of the devil, to dismiss the fact that this entity seeks the destruction of Christ's Church, that he would never make such an attempt to destroy it as a parasite from within. But for those who do believe, who do believe that there is a conspiracy of the powers of darkness against the Church of Christ, this does not appear too far off the wall, but is in fact a possibility, and for some, even a reality.
What is certain is that what happened between 1958 and 1969 did result in a mass apostasy from the Church, tens of thousands of priests did leave their vocation, hundreds of thousands of religious did leave their houses and flock to the secular realm, Things did turn for the worse, and many evil things have resulted since then, and these facts must be admitted.

Argumentative Rhetoric

"Barbarism likewise threatens when men cease to talk together according to reasonable laws. There are laws of argument, the observance of which is imperative if discourse is to be civilized. Argument ceases to be civil when it is dominated by passion and prejudice . . . when dialogue gives way to a series of monologues . . . when the parties to the conversation cease to listen to one another, or hear only what they want to hear, or see the other's argument only through the screen of their own categories; when defiance is flung to the basic ontological principle of all ordered discourse, which asserts that Reality is an analogical structure, within which there are variant modes of reality, to each of which there corresponds a distinctive method of thought that imposes on argument its own special rules. When things like this happen, men cannot be locked together in argument. Conversation becomes merely quarrelsome or querulous. Civility dies with the death of the dialogue."

John Courtney Murray, We Hold These Truths

It seems that many people simply don't know much about argumentative rhetoric, and they go into a discussion thinking that they can make bold claims with no substantiation and expect it to stand all alone against a critical world, while attacking their opponents in the discussion with extreme patsied strawmen. I thought it prudent to ennumerate some of these:

1: Argumentum ad hominem: This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information. Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves. The character, circumstances, or political ideology of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

It impacts traditionalists because novus ordos spend a lot of time attacking Traditionalists as though they are schismatic dissenters, rather than examining the tenability of their actual reasons for not being novus ordo, this is mostly from the novus ordo hierarchy but the majority of sheeple novus ordos follow in their lead, and attack based on labels, because that is one way that dishonest arguments are furthered and gobbled up by lots of people: someone who holds one opinion in one regard is misrepresented and then labeled something rather unlikeable, and so the majority condemns both the person and the ideology based on the labels and names aimed by the mainstream shepherds, and so the ideology is not heeded based on the ideology itself, not because it is erroneous or immoral, but because the mainstream higher-ups have disclaimed it. They condemn what they do not understand, they condemn because of the fact that it might mean it might place them in a bad light, not because of there being anything wrong with the argument itself.

2. Burden of proof "He who asserts must prove." The burden generally rests with the proposer, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.This is one of the most critical aspects of proper argumentation and requires that one carefully guard himself from making groundless statements. Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence.

This one is a continuation of the above discussion in that one side will say that the other side is wrong, but will not bother to demonstrate their argument, but rather simply make an allegation of error, with no basis in known fact.

3. The Red Herring: This means introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments to distract them from more important issues. The most common of these is the quibble over grammar, respond to the argument, not to the spelling, they spend more time on the opponent's spelling and person, in an ad hominum way in the usual, though it is good to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim, but not solely for the purpose of embarrassing or attacking the opponent.

This one is also a common thing in argumentation in that sometimes an opponent, rather than refute the argument at hand, will shift the discussion to an attack on the competency of the one presenting the issue to change the focus off of the issue being discussed to an attack on the person and competency of the latter, a dishonest tactic, but commonly employed. It is these that lead to misunderstandings and many unneeded issues between good Catholics.

The Ottaviani Intervention

Presently, one of the current projects that is currently in the works at VITW is one on the history of how the traditionalist movement began, which in large part includes the Ottaviani Intervention and characters involved therein. Designed to be a five part series, this one is to be a history [by no means comprehensive] for those interested in how the Traditionalists really got cranked up and going and to understand some of the main contention issues.