The Traditional Catholic's Catch-22 of Infallibility

Started by Mono no aware, March 24, 2017, 11:52:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bonaventure

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

DominusTecum

#16
Quote from: Bonaventure on March 24, 2017, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: DominusTecum on March 24, 2017, 06:45:19 PM
Catholics were Catholic before any of them accepted infallibility and before infallibility was defined at Vatican I. They believed that the Church was the one true Church. They were not Orthodox. They had the faith. The faith is more than one single doctrine first defined almost 1900 years into the lifespan of the Church.

...

Catholics made the same mistake a little later down the line, but they tried to make the papacy the absolute rule of faith, and the result was the same. It doesn't follow that the papacy should therefore be rejected any more than it follows that the Bible should be.

I don't mean to question the inerrrancy [sic] of scripture or the authority of the Papacy... only what the consequences might be of making those things the center of our faith.

I don't think infallibility made the papacy the "center" of Faith, but rhetoric like this is dangerous. I can read it, you're teasing at "infallibility was wrong," or it is somehow the problem with what is going on today. Catholics indeed were Catholic before 1870, but those who rejected papal infallibility, before and after, were of a Gallican and Jansenist bent. With rhetoric like yours, that's where one ends up.

The orthodox Catholics didn't somehow pull a 180 right after Vatican I. They already believed in papal infallibility. Who didn't? The ultrajectines, and the Gallicans, and look where they ended up. Not perfect "trad" churches, mind you.

The great saint of our days, someone like Marcel Lefebvre, guess what, he was an ultramontane unabashedly for papal infallibility.

I don't believe that the definition of infallibility at Vatican I is the ultimate cause of the crisis. I think it was an attempt to contain a crisis which predates the First Vatican Council. Infallibility has simply necessitated a different modus operandi for the enemies of the Catholic faith.

It's certainly true that most of the great Catholics of the 18th-20th centuries were of the ultramontanist bent, but that doesn't mean they were right about everything. There were great men on the other side of the fence, too. De Maistre was an ultramontanist,  Bonald had Gallican tendencies, but both were lions of the faith.

And look at the situation we find ourselves in today. Ultramontanism, once the position of the most stalwart anti-modernists, is now, under Francis, a powerful tool that the liberals within the Church use in order to enforce their agenda.

I'm a sedevacantist, but we have to ask how the counter-Church was born. It came from within the Catholic Church and was conjured in the minds of the Church hierarchy. It was the product of an all-consuming crisis in the Catholic soul. It's architects must have been driven by some subliminal hatred of their own Church and their own role as priests and pastors... There must have been signs and symptoms before the rebellion broke out in earnest.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Jacafamala on March 24, 2017, 07:11:37 PMModernists ignore it.

I disagree.  The early modernists, at least, the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century ones, used the strict parameters of infallibility as a license to reject much of the Ordinary Magisterium.  The next modernist wave—the wave that found ascendancy in the sixties—did, as you say, "ignore it," because claiming their own infallibility does not gel with their ecumenism.  The last thing they want to do is tell their beloved "separated brethren" that they need to submit to the Roman Pontiff or be damned.

However, with regards to the tension with their traditionalist critics, the modernists have been rather clever.  They know infallibility is there, but they also know that it works to their advantage.  That's why their apologists keep saying, "not to worry.  He wasn't speaking infallibility."  It saves them from a clear-cut, all-out schism.  It lets them function without that ultimate reproach.  The modernists prefer to keep things blurry.

Mono no aware

In way, for the modernists, infallibility is kind of like the nuclear launch button.  Most of the modernists have been Reagans: there was no way JP2 was going to talk about St. John the Baptist protecting Islam in a solemn encyclical.  Nor was Benedict going to make nice with the Lutherans in an infallible way.  They were aware of the tension, and they didn't want to risk a schism.  Why risk things with an Extraordinary pronouncement when impromptu statements will get the job done just as well?

A pope like Francis, however, has that beastly, renegade, cowboy quality.  He's the Donald Trump pope.  If traditional Catholicism gets too popular for his comfort, and if traditionalists can sufficiently tick him off, he would be the kind of guy who might press the button.  He would issue an encyclical called, maybe, Salvationem Universalis.

Bonaventure

Quote from: DominusTecum on March 24, 2017, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on March 24, 2017, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: DominusTecum on March 24, 2017, 06:45:19 PM
Catholics were Catholic before any of them accepted infallibility and before infallibility was defined at Vatican I. They believed that the Church was the one true Church. They were not Orthodox. They had the faith. The faith is more than one single doctrine first defined almost 1900 years into the lifespan of the Church.

...

Catholics made the same mistake a little later down the line, but they tried to make the papacy the absolute rule of faith, and the result was the same. It doesn't follow that the papacy should therefore be rejected any more than it follows that the Bible should be.

I don't mean to question the inerrrancy [sic] of scripture or the authority of the Papacy... only what the consequences might be of making those things the center of our faith.

I don't think infallibility made the papacy the "center" of Faith, but rhetoric like this is dangerous. I can read it, you're teasing at "infallibility was wrong," or it is somehow the problem with what is going on today. Catholics indeed were Catholic before 1870, but those who rejected papal infallibility, before and after, were of a Gallican and Jansenist bent. With rhetoric like yours, that's where one ends up.

The orthodox Catholics didn't somehow pull a 180 right after Vatican I. They already believed in papal infallibility. Who didn't? The ultrajectines, and the Gallicans, and look where they ended up. Not perfect "trad" churches, mind you.

The great saint of our days, someone like Marcel Lefebvre, guess what, he was an ultramontane unabashedly for papal infallibility.

I don't believe that the definition of infallibility at Vatican I is the ultimate cause of the crisis. I think it was an attempt to contain a crisis which predates the First Vatican Council. Infallibility has simply necessitated a different modus operandi for the enemies of the Catholic faith.

It had to happen to fix all of the mess proceeding the Great Western Schism. The ecclesiology on infallibility was always there, but thanks to men like Jean Gerson, we had to have Bellarmine and VI fix everything.

But as you have noted, enemies would use whatever they would to subvert the Church. The State has been the most frequented weapon. Which I will get too after...

Quote
It's certainly true that most of the great Catholics of the 18th-20th centuries were of the ultramontanist bent, but that doesn't mean they were right about everything. There were great men on the other side of the fence, too. De Maistre was an ultramontanist,  Bonald had Gallican tendencies, but both were lions of the faith.

Let's say that Bonald's "side" had won out, and papal infallibility wasn't defined. He favored an incredibly powerful state, one that controlled all education AND would subject the Church to it.

That flies in the face of everything, considering the investiture controversy, and much else. So instead of a modernist hierarch wreaking havoc, we'd simply have modernist heads of state and national assemblies doing so. A new Henry II who again wanted things done differently, his own stooges installed as bishops, and so on.

I think we can agree that even eliminating ultramontanism doesn't rid us of our problem. Nothing really does.

- going sedevacantist leaves one with a nearly 60 year vacancy, and an invisible hierarchy. I've heard all the arguments too (what about right after Pentecost)
- going orthodox leaves one in caesaropapist, nationalistic, and far too often universalist camps. Even the most "conservative" orthos I met explain away their universalism with "God can save anyone He wants, He doesn't need to follow His own rules" when they ridicule us for mortal sin and confession.

We are stuck with this mystery of iniquity. All we can do is live Catholic lives.
"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Bonaventure

Quote from: Pon de Replay on March 24, 2017, 07:54:15 PM
In way, for the modernists, infallibility is kind of like the nuclear launch button.  Most of the modernists have been Reagans: there was no way JP2 was going to talk about St. John the Baptist protecting Islam in a solemn encyclical.  Nor was Benedict going to make nice with the Lutherans in an infallible way.  They were aware of the tension, and they didn't want to risk a schism.  Why risk things with an Extraordinary pronouncement when impromptu statements will get the job done just as well?

A pope like Francis, however, has that beastly, renegade, cowboy quality.  He's the Donald Trump pope.  If traditional Catholicism gets too popular for his comfort, and if traditionalists can sufficiently tick him off, he would be the kind of guy who might press the button.  He would issue an encyclical called, maybe, Salvationem Universalis.

That's a great way to put it.
"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Jacafamala

Quote
Quote from: Pon de Replay on March 24, 2017, 07:42:29 PM

I disagree.  The early modernists, at least, the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century ones, used the strict parameters of infallibility as a license to reject much of the Ordinary Magisterium. 
Oh I didn't know that.

QuoteThe next modernist wave—the wave that found ascendancy in the sixties—did, as you say, "ignore it," because claiming their own infallibility does not gel with their ecumenism.  The last thing they want to do is tell their beloved "separated brethren" that they need to submit to the Roman Pontiff or be damned.
Right.

QuoteHowever, with regards to the tension with their traditionalist critics, the modernists have been rather clever.  They know infallibility is there, but they also know that it works to their advantage.  That's why their apologists keep saying, "not to worry.  He wasn't speaking infallibility." 
It may also be the protection of the Holy Ghost that's at work here.

QuoteIt saves them from a clear-cut, all-out schism.  It lets them function without that ultimate reproach.  The modernists prefer to keep things blurry.
Right, not that he would, but if the pope were to come out with some error claiming it Ex cathedra, half the church would walk out the door. The gig, as they say, would be up.
"I shall die with weapons in my hands."
-St Therese of Lisieux

Jacafamala

Quote from: DominusTecum on March 24, 2017, 07:38:16 PM
I'm a sedevacantist, but we have to ask how the counter-Church was born. It came from within the Catholic Church and was conjured in the minds of the Church hierarchy. It was the product of an all-consuming crisis in the Catholic soul. It's architects must have been driven by some subliminal hatred of their own Church and their own role as priests and pastors... There must have been signs and symptoms before the rebellion broke out in earnest.
Freemasons, communists, and socialists infiltrated the Church with their modernism. Pope Pius IX saw it (their poison) kicking in a hundred years ago called them "pests" and warned us with the Syllabus of Errors.
"I shall die with weapons in my hands."
-St Therese of Lisieux

Chestertonian

"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Mono no aware

Quote from: Chestertonian on March 25, 2017, 06:01:07 AM
Welcome back PDR good to see you return

Thank you, Chester.  It's good to be back on (((Suscipe Domine))).

How's your new son doing?

Mono no aware

#25
Jacafamala, I owe you an apology.  There was something amiss with the quote function in your first post on this thread—it appeared as if you simply quoted my entire OP and then responded with a pithy one-liner of your own.  So I'm sorry I only replied to that one line, and ignored the thoughtful responses you gave to the rest of the OP.

But more recently:

Quote from: Jacafamala on March 25, 2017, 04:30:11 AMFreemasons, communists, and socialists infiltrated the Church with their modernism. Pope Pius IX saw it (their poison) kicking in a hundred years ago called them "pests" and warned us with the Syllabus of Errors.

The modernist response to the Syllabus of Errors is possibly the best example of their infallibility tactic: "it's not infallible, so it's up for debate."  They were so successful in this that Cardinal Ratzinger was able to laud the revisionistic program of Vatican II as "a Counter-Syllabus"—as if errors could later be enshrined as teaching.  And people bought it.


Chestertonian

Quote from: Pon de Replay on March 25, 2017, 08:45:32 AM
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 25, 2017, 06:01:07 AM
Welcome back PDR good to see you return

Thank you, Chester.  It's good to be back on (((Suscipe Domine))).

How's your new son doing?

wjy parentheses

He's doing great.  6 and a half month ols now and we just started giving him baby food.  He has gotten a lot more vocal hasn't crawled yet but I can see him wishing he could keep up with his older brother
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Mono no aware

#27
Greetings, Chester.  The parentheses are an old internet thing.  I remember them from the early days of AOL chatrooms.  When you put the name of someone (or in this case, an institution) in parentheses, it means you're giving them a "virtual hug."  I'm not really much of a hugger myself, but I've noticed a resurgence of the practice on this forum, so I decided to join in with the prevailing spirit of jollity.  "I'm throwing my arms around Suscipe Domine," to paraphrase the great poet.

It's good to hear your son is doing well.  I've followed some of your "being disheartened with Catholicism" threads (to give them a basic category name) and I can only say that "I feel your pain."  I wonder if you might be feeding yourself too steady a diet of post-Tridentine spirituality.  It might not be of any help—but it may not hurt, either—to re-acquaint yourself with the more philosophical and mystical strains of pre-Reformation spirituality; say, Clement of Alexandria or Meister Eckhart.  Sometimes it's worthwhile to consider the bigger picture rather than to focus strictly on the more mundane and sentimental aspects.  I have always thought that the essay, "The Veil of the Temple," by Marco Pallis, is instructive in both illuminating and delineating the exoteric and esoteric sides of the same coin, Christianity.  Anyway.  Just a suggestion.


Hat And Beard

Quote from: Pon de Replay on March 26, 2017, 06:02:56 PM
The parentheses are an old internet thing.  I remember them from the early days of AOL chatrooms.  When you put the name of someone (or in this case, an institution) in parentheses, it means you're giving them a "virtual hug."

That may have been the case back in the day, but now it's used by alt-right/white supremacists to denote that someone is Jewish or Jewish influenced.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Hat And Beard on March 26, 2017, 06:06:01 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on March 26, 2017, 06:02:56 PM
The parentheses are an old internet thing.  I remember them from the early days of AOL chatrooms.  When you put the name of someone (or in this case, an institution) in parentheses, it means you're giving them a "virtual hug."

That may have been the case back in the day, but now it's used by alt-right/white supremacists to denote that someone is Jewish or Jewish influenced.

But surely on this forum, the parentheses indicate a hug.  After all, a user was recently banned for having a National Socialist as his avatar (which reminds me, I need to inquire as to what constitutes an acceptable avatar).  So presumably any whiff of "anti-Semitism" is unwelcome, no?