Riding high in the saddle

Triablogue ^ | H

[the_conscience]

Riding high in the saddle

Francis Beckwith is in a tizzy. Sometimes you have to wonder when the poor guy isn’t in a tizzy. Apparently, “coming home” hasn’t brought him the peace of mind he was seeking.

One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of "Rome," "Roman," "Romanist," etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology. Here's why: the Catholic Church is a collection of many churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's catechism--The Catechism of the Catholic Church--is that of all these churches that are in communion with one another and with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. The theology found in that text, therefore, is not Roman Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology. That's the way the Church understands itself. Common courtesy suggests that those who are critical of that theology summon the respect to refer to it as such.

I am a member of a parish that is in the Latin Rite, and thus, I am, in that sense, "Roman" Catholic. But if, let's say, my wife and I moved to Austin and we became members of Our Lady's Maronite Church, we would still be Catholic, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but not technically "Roman" Catholic. We would be Maronite Catholic.

I, of course, do not believe that people who use the phrase "Roman Catholic" without knowing its pedigree are intending anything more than to label. Others, however, are less noble in their purposes.

Consequently, anyone with any grasp of the issues knows full well that the Catholic Church is no more the Roman Catholic Church than is the United States of America the District of Columbia of America.

Just as it is not wise or polite to insist on calling a man "black" who asks you to call him an "African American," one should call Catholicism by the name it calls itself rather the label its ignorant or bigoted critics insist on calling it.

If an individual Catholic wants to be called a "Roman Catholic," that's his business, and I will respect him by calling him nothing but that. On the other hand, if the Church with which he is in communion insists on calling itself "Catholic," he and the Protestant should comply, if for no other reason than that it is charitable to do so and charity is a virtue.

I guess it should not surprise me that a Protestant would not only protest against the Catholic Church but also the Catholic Church's use of the word Catholic. He's not pleased with just leaving our church and having his own church; he wants to take our name and give us a new one. So much for the "priesthood of all believers." :-)

You wouldn’t expect a philosophy prof. to exhibit quite so much philosophical naiveté.

i) For starters, when speakers (or writers) use a designation, it’s not necessarily to make a point about the referent. Oftentimes, it’s just a common way of referring to something. A conventional, recognizable designation.

In that context, such usage carries no special significance one way or the other. There’s no subtext.

ii) At other times, the speaker will, indeed, use a designation to make a point. But one of the odd things about Beckwith’s outrage is that “Roman Catholic” or “Roman Catholicism” comports perfectly well with the self-understanding of his denomination. According to the official legend that underwrites his denomination, Peter, as vicar of Christ, was the first bishop of Rome, and he ordained a line of successors. That’s why Catholic apologists and theologians stress “Roman primacy.”

Why Beckwith imagines this usage to be ignorant, or bigoted is puzzling.

iii) It’s even more puzzling when you consider the fact that he himself entitled his book “Return to Rome.” And that’s also the name of his blog.

The fact that he’s so hypersensitive about this innocuous designation on the lips of Protestants must betray some insecurity on his part.

iv) Conversely, and ironically, the reason he gives for why a Protestant speaker should defer to “Catholic” usage is the very reason a Protestant might balk. To the extent that this designation is taken to reflect the self-understanding of his denomination, that’s an excellent reason to avoid it.

A self-designation can be a propaganda device: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…”

In cases where a self-designation is propagandistic, a speaker has every right to resist that terminology.

Mainland Chinese party officials might well regard it as more charitable and polite to designate their totalitarian regime the “People’s Republic of China,” but I’ll stick with “Red China.”

Mormons might find it more charitable and polite if we called them “Christians” rather than “Mormons.” After all, the self-designation of their cult is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” That reflects their self-understanding.

Since, however, that self-designation is a propaganda tool, I’ll stick with “Mormon.”

Likewise, the abortion lobby prefers to peddle euphemisms like “woman’s choice” or “medical procedure.” Does charity or courtesy oblige me to be a party of their agenda?

To take his own example, when race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson insist on “African-American” to denote and promote their brand of identity-politics, I reserve the right to opt out of that linguistic extortion.

v) I can’t help noticing that the church of Rome only discovered the virtues of courtesy and charity rather late in the day. If, for example, you read the text of Exsurge Domine (available online), the language and countermeasures proposed by Pope Leo X to describe and suppress the nascent Protestant movement doesn’t strike me as overly charitable or courteous.

I also can’t help but notice that this discovery seems to time with the church of Rome’s loss of temporal power. And therein lies a moral: the true test of charity is not to be charitable when you have to be, but to be charitable when you don’t have to be.

Once his denomination no longer had state sponsorship to back its brass knuckle policies, then it suddenly discovered the virtues of tolerance. Funny how those in power are quick to advocate tolerance the moment they fall from power. But I’m sure that’s purely coincidental.

vi) For Beckwith to image that Protestants are “taking our name,” as if the church of Rome held the copyright to “Catholic,” is symptomatic of his insular self-absorption.

This sort of opining about someone’s inner life and thought processes from an online interview is unseemly. The meanness was palpable.

I have no idea how people like Mr. Turk can so causally and without regard for others claim to know every jot and tittle of what lurks in a person’s spiritual journey. It made me ill when I read it two years ago, and it makes me ill to read again now.

To take something so personal, profound, and moving and turn into a condescending blog entry in order to get a rise out of your fundamentalist Amen corner is beyond the pale.

But what just sticks in my craw is the arrogant flippancy of people like Turk who think they can move from a brief interview to pronounce on the seriousness of a person’s spiritual journey.

Of course, that complaint is wholly duplicitous. Like so many converts and reverts, Beckwith is using his life story to justify his change of religious alliance. An exercise in autobiographical apologetics. Since he himself has made that large part of the argument, then his personal narrative is fair game.

In fact, virtually every Christological heresy in the history of the church is the consequence of someone trying to split the difference.

That’s often the case. And it’s highly ironic that Beckwith would bring this up since church of Rome has always tried to split the difference between sola gratia, on the one hand, and human freedom or merit, on the other. So, by his own yardstick, “Catholic” soteriology is analogous to Christological heresies.

It seems to me that the issue on which the Reformation ultimately turns is the nature of grace. Once I could not in good conscience hold to forensic justification and imputed righteousness, I had no choice but to return to the Church of my baptism.

i) That’s quite illogical. Even if you reject forensic justification and imputed righteousness, it’s not as though the church of Rome is the only alternative. Why not become an Anabaptist or Eastern Orthodox, or any number of other options?

ii) Does Catholic theology reject imputed righteousness? Sure, there’s more to Catholic theology than imputed righteousness–like congruent merit and infused grace. But doesn’t Catholicism also subscribe to the vicarious atonement of Christ? Likewise, isn’t the treasury of merit vicarious merit?

All I am suggesting is that Evangelicals like Turk learn how to read others with an eye toward learning rather than “gotcha.” If he had not read the interview locked and loaded, and if he had taken the time to understand Trent as Trent understood itself rather than how philosophically untutored low-church fundamentalist American Christians read it...

i) I’m struck by how often Catholic converts and reverts exhibit this overweening pride. Why do so many of them act like self-important prigs? I always have to ask myself, are they so proud of themselves because they're Catholic, or are they Catholic because they're so proud of themselves?

I’d just note in passing that if a man is that full of himself, then there’s not much room left over for Jesus.

ii) Moreover, Beckwith is not a church historian or licensed Catholic theologian. He’s not some great authority on Tridentine theology. He’s just a layman–like you and me.

A word of advice to Beckwith: Don’t get on your high horse when you ride a Shetland pony.

iii) To further an ecumenical agenda, there’s a lot of historical revisionism afoot regarding the original intent of the Tridentine Fathers. And it isn’t just beetle-browed fundies who see it that way. To take a few examples from different sides of the debate:

Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome (Concordia 1997)

http://wordalone.com/docs/wa-german-professors.shtml

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9912/articles/dulles.html

[the_conscience]

This is funny. Beckwith get his skull cap handed to him.

[Lorica]

One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of "Rome," "Roman," "Romanist," etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology.

The use of "Romanist" is a dead giveaway of anti-Catholic bias. Putting lipstick on it doesn't help. It's still ugly.

[RobbyS]

Er, “Roman Catholic” is a word of English Protestant origin. We have just sort of accepted it as Latter Day Saints have accepted take name “mormon.” Bottom line: It is not official.

[vladimir998]

Actually Beckwith is much better reasoned in his thinking then the moron who responded to his statement.

The simple fact is that I am not Roman. I am Catholic, however. When someone insists on calling me a “Roman Catholic” after I inform him that that is a Protestant term and is not appropriate or accurate, I know the Protestant is clearly a bigot. That assessment has always been borne out by later information too.

What Beckwith is discovering, if he didn’t know it already, is that many Protestant opponants of the Catholic faith are bigots. I did get a few bigots to stop doing this by INSISTING that they call me the “N-word” as well. They were usually dumbstruck when I first insisted on it, but got the point that one bigotry was as bad as another.

[superdad]

“The simple fact is that I am not Roman. I am Catholic, however.”

When I was an Episcopalian, I was Catholic also. We did refer to ourselves as Anglo-Catholics to distinguish ourselves from Roman Catholics. Are you Episcopalian?

[Campion]

"Romanist" is a derogatory term. Most dictionaries identify it as such.

"Roman Catholic" is a term invented originally by Anglicans who were claiming that one could be Catholic without allegiance to the Pope.

The terms "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" are somewhat suspicious as well. We don't call Southern Baptists "adherents of the Church of Nashville," nor do we call members of the PCA "adherents of the Church of Lawrenceville, Georgia," nor do we call Anglicans "adherents of the Cantabridgian Church". But I have been called "an adherent of the Church of Rome" more than once by Anglicans.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“When I was an Episcopalian, I was Catholic also.”

I’m not trying to offend you, but I don’t see how that is possible. Episcopalianism is not Catholic or catholic.

“We did refer to ourselves as Anglo-Catholics to distinguish ourselves from Roman Catholics. Are you Episcopalian?”

No, just Catholic.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

This is funny. Beckwith get his skull cap handed to him.

Thanks for the ping. Great article. And VERY appropriate to our discussions.

Why Beckwith imagines this usage to be ignorant, or bigoted is puzzling. It’s even more puzzling when you consider the fact that he himself entitled his book “Return to Rome.”

lol. Rome double-speak.

"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." -- James 1:8

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I always have to ask myself, are they so proud of themselves because they're Catholic, or are they Catholic because they're so proud of themselves?

I think it's primarily the latter.

[Alex Murphy]

I’m struck by how often Catholic converts and reverts exhibit this overweening pride. Why do so many of them act like self-important prigs? I always have to ask myself, are they so proud of themselves because they're Catholic, or are they Catholic because they're so proud of themselves?

....Beckwith is not a church historian or licensed Catholic theologian. He’s not some great authority on Tridentine theology. He’s just a layman–like you and me. A word of advice to Beckwith: Don’t get on your high horse when you ride a Shetland pony.

Ping for later

[the_conscience]

v) I can’t help noticing that the church of Rome only discovered the virtues of courtesy and charity rather late in the day. If, for example, you read the text of Exsurge Domine (available online), the language and countermeasures proposed by Pope Leo X to describe and suppress the nascent Protestant movement doesn’t strike me as overly charitable or courteous.

I also can’t help but notice that this discovery seems to time with the church of Rome’s loss of temporal power. And therein lies a moral: the true test of charity is not to be charitable when you have to be, but to be charitable when you don’t have to be.

Once his denomination no longer had state sponsorship to back its brass knuckle policies, then it suddenly discovered the virtues of tolerance. Funny how those in power are quick to advocate tolerance the moment they fall from power. But I’m sure that’s purely coincidental.

Rome at her heights ruled with a Rahm Immanuel style of means justifying ends but once the West broke free of her grip Rome had no real power and eventually turned to existentialism which was manifested in Vatican II. Now she and her congregants display an Ophrahesque internalism seemingly always a victim with their self-esteem in need of repair.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, they've turned from the "existentialism of Vatican II" with a fury and now find themselves moving swiftly towards the fascism that is inherent within its top-down ranks as it follows a "you-know-what" pope who tells us we all must submit to a "global authority" on earth who will manage our lives, our faith, our families, our finances, our defense and our conscience.

lol. No thanks.

[the_conscience]

I’m sure Rome would love to return to her role of informing Kings and Tyrants and why she is promoting one world government.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Rome at her heights...”

When exactly? Give me a century at least.

“...ruled with a Rahm Immanuel style of means justifying ends...”

Define “ruled”.

“...but once the West broke free of her grip Rome had no real power and eventually turned to existentialism which was manifested in Vatican II.”

What you just said makes absolutely no sense.

“Now she and her congregants display an Ophrahesque internalism seemingly always a victim with their self-esteem in need of repair.”

I have no idea of what you’re babbling about. Have you read any of the encyclicals of either of the last two popes?

[vladimir998]

So you and the_conscience disagree. Interesting.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So you and the_conscience disagree. Interesting.

I don't see where we disagree.

[vladimir998]

the_conscience, although he used the word “Now” in the subsequent sentence wrote this:

“...eventually turned to existentialism which was manifested in Vatican II.”

You, however, wrote:

“Yes, they’ve turned from the “existentialism of Vatican II” with a fury and now find themselves moving swiftly towards the fascism...”

So, you believe the Church is headed toward facism and away from the_conscience’s idea of “existentialism of Vatican II”.

Although the_conscience used the word “Now” which might hint at a change, he gave no attestation of it. Thus, you believe one thing and he believes another - if your words can be relied on for meaning.

[the_conscience]

Nope, no disagreement. We both see how Ratzy is trying to set up for a one world government.

[HarleyD]

I am a member of a parish that is in the Latin Rite, and thus, I am, in that sense, "Roman" Catholic. But if, let's say, my wife and I moved to Austin and we became members of Our Lady's Maronite Church, we would still be Catholic, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but not technically "Roman" Catholic. We would be Maronite Catholic.

Sounds like they're a Catholic denomination. ;O)

[vladimir998]

Your statements still disagree. The fact that two anti-Catholics share the same delusional or paranoid vision about Christ’s Church doesn’t change that.

[the_conscience]

At first you claimed you could not discern my “babble” then a couple of posts later you try to engage in deconstructing the meaning to prove a point. That sort of duplicitous reading is called: The hermeneutics of Rome.

[the_conscience]

shhh...they’re in denial. 8P

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“At first you claimed you could not discern my “babble” then a couple of posts later you try to engage in deconstructing the meaning to prove a point. That sort of duplicitous reading is called: The hermeneutics of Rome.”

No. Your comment made no sense and still doesn’t. That does not mean the time references mentioned it were not intelligible.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We do not disagree. Vatican II was riddled with existentialism. Ratzinger is a fascist. Two true statements.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I’m sure Rome would love to return to her role of informing Kings and Tyrants and why she is promoting one world government.

Sadly, I think she does a lot of that already. Why in the world does the Vatican havea a seat in the U.N?

The Vatican is 0.2 square miles and has a population of 770, none of whom are permanent residents.

Insanity.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“We do not disagree.”

Your statements certainly seem to.

“Vatican II was riddled with existentialism.”

Such as?

“Ratzinger is a fascist.”

So a man who resisted fascism is a fascist? And what proof do you have for that statement?

“Two true statements.”

Clearly not.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So a man who resisted fascism is a fascist?

lol. Ratzinger did not "resist fascism." Only Rome rewrites history with such happy disregard for the truth.

Ratzinger, the Hitler Youth.

Ratzinger, the son of an SS officer.

Ratzinger, the member of an anti-aircraft artillery unit that shot down Allied planes.

Ratzinger, the army deserter in the face of the oncoming Russian army.

Ratzinger, Rome's Chief Inquisitor for decades.

Ratzinger, the man entrusted to contain and deny the pederast priest sex scandal.

Ratzinger, the man who shook hands with a muslim terrorist and gave him a podium to spew venom against Israel.

Ratzinger, the man who called all Protestant churches "defective."

Ratzinger, the architect of an outline for a "global authority."

Now count off your false denials. Been there; done that. The truth remains.

God willing, RCs will take off the papist spectacles and understand what history teaches. After that, they can read the Bible, God willing.

[Quix]

Far too true.

Sadly.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

1) “lol. Ratzinger did not “resist fascism.” Only Rome rewrites history with such happy disregard for the truth.”

No, what I said is true.

2) “Ratzinger, the Hitler Youth.”

By law all German youth were in the Hitler Youth. There was no way to live in Germany and not be in the Hitler Youth. Pope Benedict, however, refused to participate in numerous activities and only did what was absolutely required of him since he and his family opposed the Nazis.

3) “Ratzinger, the son of an SS officer.”

Actually Pope Benedict’s father retired from the police in 1937 and steadfastly refused to cooperate with the Nazis. That’s exactly what led to his retirement. The Nazi SS absorbed the police in 1936. Ratzinger got out in 1937. As the Sunday Times described the older Ratzinger:

“His father, also called Joseph, was an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move home several times.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article382076.ece

So much for your “history” there.

And as the NYTimes, certainly not a supporter of the pope, admitted:

“Father [George, the pope’s brother] Ratzinger does not seem troubled by that history. “Our father was a bitter enemy of Nazism because he believed it was in conflict with our faith,” he said. “That was the example he set for us.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/international/worldspecial2/22germany.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1114340564-13zVUfWUfsfMLXhqWFxrDA

4) “Ratzinger, the member of an anti-aircraft artillery unit that shot down Allied planes.”

But he shot none down.

5) “Ratzinger, the army deserter in the face of the oncoming Russian army.”

I don’t think so, but if he did, God bless him for it! One second you try to blacken his name because his anti-aircraft battery (not him, just the battery he was officially assigned to) shot down allied planes, and a second later you complain because he deserted in the face of the Russians? Hahahahahahahahah!

Pope Benedict was in a labor unit in Hungary or near Hungary. He did not desert there. When he did desert, he was in the German army. There was no Soviet army there so I don’t see how he was a deserter in the face of the Soviets. Was he supposed to die for the horrible regime in power? Is that what you wish he did?

6) “Ratzinger, Rome’s Chief Inquisitor for decades.”

So? How was his job any more sinister than any FBI agent’s?

7) “Ratzinger, the man entrusted to contain and deny the pederast priest sex scandal.”

He did no such thing. And please don’t trot some decade old document you probably don’t even understand and make false claims.

8) “Ratzinger, the man who shook hands with a muslim terrorist and gave him a podium to spew venom against Israel.”

The Pope did not know he was a terrorist, and left when he discovered the man’s agenda: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242029499952&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull So, the Jerusalem Post knows what happened. Why is your account so different than that of the people there?

9) “Ratzinger, the man who called all Protestant churches “defective.””

And he is, of course, correct.

10) “Ratzinger, the architect of an outline for a “global authority.””

So?

“Now count off your false denials. Been there; done that. The truth remains.”

You made ten statements. Some are simply outright false. Others are distortions. Others are true, but mean nothing in regard to your claims. So far, you’ve got NOTHING.

“God willing, RCs will take off the papist spectacles and understand what history teaches.”

If Catholics look into history, they’ll see how wrong you are. As John Henry Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

“After that, they can read the Bible, God willing.”

Many of us already do. It is our book after all.

When you have some actual evidence for your claims, let me know.

[Quix]

EXCELLENT ARTICLE.

THANKS.

PARTICULARLY:

In cases where a self-designation is propagandistic, a speaker has every right to resist that terminology.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

steadfastly refused to cooperate with the Nazis. That’s exactly what led to his retirement.

His father retired on time, with full honors. The family suffered no reprisals. So all the revision of Rome falls flat by the evidence.

As shown in many articles, some Germans with more integrity and conscience than Ratzinger and his family refused to join the Hitler Youth. Ratzinger chose another path. He complied.

And how do you know that "he shot down none" (Allied airplanes?) He was a member of an anti-aircraft artillery unit and he wasn't reprimanded. He did his job like all German soldiers who fought for Hitler's Germany whose fathers were members of the S.S.

I mentioned Ratzinger's desertion because some RC apologists use his desertion as a badge of honor when in fact practically the entire German army was deserting as the Russian army approached.

Ratzinger did not "resist fascism." By examination of his life, he has never "resisted fascism." He has embraced it and now wishes the same for the entire world through a "global authority."

[HarleyD]

“Vatican II was riddled with existentialism.” - Such as?

This is argued by Catholics all the time. Perhaps it would be best to review some of their examples at Catholic Blog. We just happen to agree with those Catholics who believe this is so.

So a man who resisted fascism is a fascist? And what proof do you have for that statement?

Er....Ratzinger, who was a member of Hitler's Youth Squad, does not sound like one who "resisted" fascism. You could try to make the excuse that he was coerce, but he clearly did not resist.

[jla]

I refer to myself as "Roman Catholic" simply because Rome is where the Church was founded and where the Pontiff sits.
When asked my denomination and I reply, "Roman Catholic", I am declaring that I adhere to traditional Catholicism, founded by the Apostle Peter at the behest of God.

Rather than derogatory, I find the term, "Roman Catholic", unambiguous, as to my faith, as well as befitting and proper.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“His father retired on time, with full honors. The family suffered no reprisals.”

Incorrect. “The Sunday Times of London described the elder Ratzinger as “an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move several times.” According to the International Herald Tribune, these relocations were directly related to Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.’s continued resistance to Nazism, which resulted in demotions and transfers. The pope’s brother Georg said: “Our father was a bitter enemy of Nazism because he believed it was in conflict with our faith.”” http://www.stephrem.org/pope.htm

“So all the revision of Rome falls flat by the evidence.”

What evidence?

“As shown in many articles, some Germans with more integrity and conscience than Ratzinger and his family refused to join the Hitler Youth.”

He refused to serve at every turn he could:

Seewald: “Were you in the Hitler Youth?”

Ratzinger: “At first we weren’t, but when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but later, as a seminarian, I was registered in the HY. As soon as I was out of the seminary, I never went back. That was difficult, because the tuition reduction, which I really needed, was tied to proof of attendance at the HY. Thank goodness, there was a very understanding mathematics teacher. He himself was a Nazi but an honest man, who said to me, ‘Just go once and get the document, so that we have it …’ When he saw that I simply didn’t want to, he said, ‘I understand, I’ll take care of it,’ and so I was able to stay free of it.”

“Ratzinger chose another path. He complied.”

Apparently not...if you read the evidence.

“And how do you know that “he shot down none” (Allied airplanes?) He was a member of an anti-aircraft artillery unit and he wasn’t reprimanded.”

He says he never fired a shot. I have no reason to doubt him.

“He did his job like all German soldiers who fought for Hitler’s Germany whose fathers were members of the S.S.”

His father was not a member of the SS. The police all across the country were absorbed by the SS. His fatehr retired soon after. If your company were absorbed by the SS and you retired soon after, would it be fair (or honest) to refer to you as an SS member? No, it would not be fair or honest.

“I mentioned Ratzinger’s desertion because some RC apologists use his desertion as a badge of honor when in fact practically the entire German army was deserting as the Russian army approached.”

Fine, now make up your mind. Was he right or wrong to do it? Saying you posted something because of supposed pC claims makes no sense if your contradicting yourself.

“Ratzinger did not “resist fascism.””

Yes, he did and I posted evidence of such.

” By examination of his life, he has never “resisted fascism.””

Incorrect. I posted evidence of such and you have posted no evidence at all.

“He has embraced it and now wishes the same for the entire world through a “global authority.””

Nonsense. Facsists, as Jonah Goldberg points out so well in his book, Liberal Fascism, believe that their attempts at dominating power in society are about redeeming the mass of people from the social ills which afflict them. To accomplish this they must lose their individuality and serve the state, the party and the movement.

Pope Benedict opposes that entirely. As Michael Novak wrote in the NYTimes:

One of Cardinal Ratzinger’s central, and most misunderstood, notions is his conception of liberty, and he is very jealous in thinking deeply about it, pointing often to Tocqueville. He is a strong foe of socialism, statism and authoritarianism, but he also worries that democracy, despite its great promise, is exceedingly vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, to “the new soft despotism” of the all-mothering state, and to the common belief that liberty means doing whatever you please. Following Lord Acton and James Madison, Cardinal Ratzinger has written of the need of humans to practice self-government over their passions in private life.

He also fears that Europe, especially, is abandoning the search for objective truth and sliding into pure subjectivism. That is how the Nazis arose, he believes, and the Leninists. When all opinions are considered subjective, no moral ground remains for protesting against lies and injustices. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/opinion/20novak.html?_r=1

This is Benedict’s own view in his own words:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.”

Clearly Pope Benedict is not a fascist at all. You might want to ask yourself why you keep making that claim without any evidence whatsoever and in the face of all the evidence that there is.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“This is argued by Catholics all the time.”

I asked you for a specific example of how the council was “was riddled with existentialism.” Can you provide one or not?

“Perhaps it would be best to review some of their examples at Catholic Blog.”

The fact that the phrase “Conciliar Church” is used doesn’t make me assume it is a Catholic blog. And I asked you for a specific example of Vatican II being “riddled with existentialism.”

“We just happen to agree with those Catholics who believe this is so.”

Offer a specific example.

“Er....Ratzinger, who was a member of Hitler’s Youth Squad,”

Against his will. By law, all youth had to be. He did as little as possible to obey the law and not be active in the Hitler Youth.

“...does not sound like one who “resisted” fascism.”

Yeah, actually it does.

“You could try to make the excuse that he was coerce, but he clearly did not resist.”

He clearly did. And I posted the evidence.

[Titanites]

His father retired on time, with full honors.

You've been corrected on this untruth at least a couple of times here and here.

At least you have dropped the untruth that he was promoted by the Nazis.

[vladimir998]

Wow. He’s posted these same whoppers before?

Unreal.

[the_conscience]

What a pleasure to hear from a reasonable Romanist. All denomination names are simply identity markers that give a simple description of that churches belief system.

I think the reason your fellow congregants rage against the identity marker is because they still cannot accept the fact that Protestants do not accept Romanism as the one, true, and only church of God.

So by means of compulsion they try to force Protestants to call them by an identity marker that will implicitly accept their self-designation.

Thanks for writing.

[the_conscience]

Ping to 39.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I've been "corrected?" Lol.

Your fanciful opinions do not "correct" nor change in any way the historic fact that Ratzinger's father retired on time and the family suffered no reprisals for any concocted philosophical disagreement with Nazi authorities.

Ratzinger pere was a SS officer by virtue of the German police being absorbed into the SS. As such, he continued to serve in his job as a SS officer and retired on time as a SS officer.

A more honest tact would be to say that people change and that Ratzinger apologizes for his willing participation in Nazi Germany.

But introspection and self-examination have always been outside the desire and ability of the papacy.

More's the pity.

[Titanites]

Your fanciful opinions do not "correct" nor change in any way the historic fact that Ratzinger's father retired on time

They are not my fanciful opinions:

Fact - Benedict XVI's father, born in March 1877, retired in 1937. From the Jewish Virtual Library: In 1937, Ratzinger's father retired and settled in the town of Traunstein. In 1937, he was at the age of 60.

Fact - The normal retirmement age in Germany was 65 years, as set by Otto von Bismarck, according to the SSA.

Fact - The age of 60 is less than the age of 65. He retired early, not at the normal retirement age of 65.

Fact - You have no evidence that the Nazi's gave Joseph Ratzinger Sr. any honors.

You are the one short on facts.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I’ve been “corrected?” Lol.”

Yes, you’ve been corrected. And yes, it’s funny you still hold to the errors even though you have been corrected.

“Your fanciful opinions do not “correct” nor change in any way the historic fact that Ratzinger’s father retired on time and the family suffered no reprisals for any concocted philosophical disagreement with Nazi authorities.”

And yet, at least one newspaper apparently claims the Ratzinger family was forced to move home several times because of the father’s anti-Nazi stance.

“Ratzinger pere was a SS officer by virtue of the German police being absorbed into the SS.”

In other words, he had nothing to do with it, it was imposed by a dictatorship, and your earlier statements making seem like HE CHOOSE to become an SS man were false implications. Thanks.

“As such, he continued to serve in his job as a SS officer and retired on time as a SS officer.”

He retired as soon as he could - within months of the SS imposing their will on the police.

“A more honest tact would be to say that people change and that Ratzinger apologizes for his willing participation in Nazi Germany.”

What? He always opposed the Nazis and still does - there’s nothing more honest than that.

“But introspection and self-examination have always been outside the desire and ability of the papacy.”

(snicker) That’s hilarious coming from someone who has been corrected by multiple Freepers but who still posts the same old untruths, half truths and distortions.

“More’s the pity.”

What’s a pity is the complete lack of evidence and argument in your posts on the subject.

[the_conscience]

"I asked you for a specific example of how the council was “was riddled with existentialism.” Can you provide one or not?"

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Forty+years+later:+Vatican+II+(1962-1965)-a0138657297

The Second Vatican Council is another instance of the Church's responding to man's needs in a new way that honours her tradition. This willingness to engage human culture in every age, characteristically Catholic as opposed to Orthodox or Protestant, I have described in an earlier issue of Catholic Insight: "The Differences between Catholics and Orthodox" (September, 2001). This engagement provides the best way to comprehend the achievement of the Council; there is a legitimate way to speak of "the spirit of Vatican II." Like Saint Augustine's critical use of Plato, or Saint Thomas Aquinas's of Aristotle, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council incorporated modern philosophical and scientific systems into the functioning of the Council and its documents. The true "spirit of Vatican II," therefore, is a confident discrimination of modern achievements in politics, science, thought, and culture. Benedict XVI, e.g., as Cardinal Ratzinger, in his Principles of Catholic Theology (p. 334) noted one controversial influence on the Council: Pierre Teilhard de ChardinNoun 1. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - French paleontologist and philosopher (1881-1955)

Teilhard de Chardin

(d. 1955). His Milieu divin was once described by the Reformed theologian Karl Barth as "a giant Gnostic snake." More importantly, the Council drew also upon the thought of the German philosopher Edmund Husserl (d. 1938), whose theory of phenomenology has been utilized by, among others, Saint Edith Stein and Pope John Paul II.

Teilhard's optimism

Teilhard's optimistic blend of Christianity and science is particularly apparent in the conciliar Constitution Gaudium et SpesGaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, was one of the chief accomplishments of the Second Vatican Council. Approved by a vote of 2,307 to 75 of the bishops assembled at the council, and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December (The Church in the Modern World): "Nothing that is genuinely human fails to find an echo in the hearts [of the followers of Christ]." Despite an obvious weakness in his theology of evolution--it links spiritual progress so closely to material and intellectual evolution that it virtually ignores sin and its consequences and so abandons the historical Jesus for a cosmic Christ that can seem more of a force than a person--Teilhard was convinced that history has a direction and that the salvation accomplished by Jesus leads ultimately to the "new heaven and the new earth" of the Book of Revelation. His basic principle was the harmony of all truth; scientific knowledge and authentic religion can never be in conflict. Thus, in Gaudium et Spes the optimism of Pope John is revealed in the conviction that there can be a fruitful dialogue between the Church and "the world," meaning here the scientific, technological and political components of modern society.

SNIP

Edmund Husserl The phenomenology of Edmund Husserl had a far greater impact on the Council than Teilhard de Chardin Teil·hard de Char·din , Pierre 1881-1955.

French priest, paleontologist, and philosopher who maintained that the universe and humankind are evolving toward a perfect state. . According to John F. Kobler, C.P., Husserl's phenomenology affected not only the conciliar documents but also the functioning of the Council itself. Father Kobler, the author of two books and scores of articles on this topic, claims that John XXIII's desire to make the Church more effective in proclaiming Jesus Christ to the world was accomplished by employing the principles of phenomenology. Two of them have been identified by Father Kobler in an article published in the December, 1988 issue of the Canadian Catholic Review. The first is "the outwards/inwards distinction," referring to "the way ideas take place within our consciousness." The second is to view man "in terms of his concrete relationships." The emphasis is on experience, which at the Council was the concrete realization of what many knew theoretically, that the Church was universal. Benedict XVI captured the feelings of the bishops and their retinues as they gathered at the Vatican in 1962:

"The Council is a Pentecost--that was a thought that corresponded to our own experiences at that time; ... it reflected what we experienced on our arrival in the city of the Council: meetings with bishops of all countries, all tongues, far beyond what Luke [in Acts, 2] could have imagined and, thus, a lived experience of real Catholicity with its Pentecostal hope," (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 367).

It was this transforming experience, rooted in Jesus Christ and its continuing in the Church, that the Council wanted to bring to a wounded world. That events within and outside of the Church to a large extent frustrated the work of the Council does not invalidate its achievement, for without it Pope John Paul II would not have been elected, much less almost single-handedly made the experience and the documents of Vatican II--as old as Christianity itself and yet new--available to the Church and to the world. History may well recognize that in this providential pontificate Vatican II, like Trent and Nicaea, succeeded in its great work.

Father Daniel Callam is a priest with the Congregation of Saint Basil. He teaches theology at St. Thomas University Schools with the name St. Thomas University:

[vladimir998]

I asked YOU for an example. I did not ask you for the opinion of a liberal teaching at a liberal university.

Can you give an example of not?

[the_conscience]

All you have in response is Ad Homs. You’re even willing to eat your own. You’re thrashing like an endangered prey.

[vladimir998]

You made a claim.

Show us YOUR examples. How hard can it be, if what you claim is true?

[HarleyD]

I asked you for a specific example of how the council was “was riddled with existentialism.” Can you provide one or not?

Sure. I think there is no greater example of existentialism than the ridicules idea of man's free will as documented in the Council of Trent. It is nothing more than humanism to believe that man is in control of his destiny, which is to choose whether he goes to heaven or hell. Now, would you deny that Catholic Church doctrine has given man this power of decision?

Against his will. By law, all youth had to be. He did as little as possible to obey the law and not be active in the Hitler Youth.

What a bunch of hooey. You're saying that NO ONE resisted the Hitler youth squad. That simply is not the case. Ratzinger took the side that was convenient for whatever reason. And the idea that he did "as little as possible" is anecdotal.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Sure. I think there is no greater example of existentialism than the ridicules idea of man’s free will as documented in the Council of Trent.”

We’re talking about the Second Vatican Council. At least YOU tried.

“It is nothing more than humanism to believe that man is in control of his destiny, which is to choose whether he goes to heaven or hell.”

No, it is merely common sense to believe God does not save us against our will. Nor does he force us to sin. We choose. We have free will.

“Now, would you deny that Catholic Church doctrine has given man this power of decision?”

Yes. God Himself gave man Free Will. The Church merely recognizes what is known to be true by all right thinking men. Only those who have embraced heresy deny Free Will.

“What a bunch of hooey. You’re saying that NO ONE resisted the Hitler youth squad. That simply is not the case.”

What is the case is that Benedict resist in whatever way he could.

“Ratzinger took the side that was convenient for whatever reason.”

He resisted. If you find that convenient, fine.

“And the idea that he did “as little as possible” is anecdotal.”

No, it is borne out by the facts. What his enemies are saying in anecdotal.

[the_conscience]

“Show us YOUR examples”

If you keep asking me my existential experiences of it then I would think that proves the point.