OPEN

BYPASS BIG TECH CENSORSHIP - SIGN UP FOR mICHAEL mATT'S REGULAR E-BLAST

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

OPEN
Search the Remnant Newspaper
Friday, November 7, 2014

I say full communion, you say partial communion. Let’s call the whole thing off

By:   Dismas
Rate this item
(14 votes)
C. Ferrara and M. Matt-- 'Enemies of the Church', according to...er...JTC C. Ferrara and M. Matt-- 'Enemies of the Church', according to...er...JTC

The "Blog for Dallas Area Catholics" recently featured an essay regarding a video posted by The Remnant. To that essay came the following contribution from "JTC", followed the next day by a response from another reader. We found this exchange of ideas interesting and we reproduce them here. We believe that this exchange of ideas speaks for itself and we therefore offer no further commentary. We correct one typographical error in the first contribution for the sake of clarity. The entire discussion may be viewed HERE

First, JTC Says...

Since “out of communion” seems to be subject to mushy definitions, how about introducing some precision able to more objectively evaluated:

“Being in communion with the Church means, AT LEAST, that one is part of and within the divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church.”

This definition allows one to be critical of a whole variety of things uttered or done by any member of the hierarchy of the Church, including the Pope but, because the person making the criticism is part of and submissive to the divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church, he is, regardless of “criticism,” in communion with the Church.

But this definition leaves out the SSPX, none of whom are part of or submissive to the divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church.

“Communion” with the Church and the Pope is a concept that is too soft and euphemistic to be useful anymore. It can mean almost anything, and it does mean whatever someone wants it to mean in most cases. So you get the weirdness of “communion with the Church” that too often translates to “communion with the Faith” but leaves out of the conversation whether someone is part of the divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church. The Independent Catholic Church of North America can claim with defensible arguments that they are Catholic because of X, Y and Z, and also point to their baptism which does, indeed, make them “in communion with Christ” in SOME meaningful sense. So, also, the SSPX are Catholic in belief and practice but for the small detail that they are not part of the divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church.

Matt, Ferrara, The Remnant and Catholic Family News are enemies of the Church hiding behind loyalty to the Faith. Part of the divinely revealed Truth, the Deposit of Faith, is the visible reality and hierarchical structure of the Church. By giving “aid and comfort” to those who believe one can be Catholic without being part of that hierarchical structure they sin against the unity of the Church. That makes them enemies with whom no faithful Catholic can “join forces.” They are, in fact, “enemies within” waging war against the Church Herself by elevating the Faith above and somehow apart from the Church.

Vitriolic criticism of the Pope, such as The Remnant and Catholic Family News engage, can be contrasted with the kind of criticism offered by Patrick Archbold and many others who, though critical of the Pope, criticize in a way that doesn’t bleed over into hatred of the Church Herself as we experience Her today. You can’t say you are loyal to the Church, and the Pope, and engage in rhetoric that contains the kind of angry, hateful, resentful vocabulary found in the columns found on The Remnant and Catholic Family News.

The Remnant and Catholic Family News do contain much that is helpful and educational for Catholics but, like Playboy and their articles, one is also exposed to points of view that encourage people to separate themselves from the divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church (ALL articles which support the SSPX fall in that category, plus those which question the legitimacy of recent canonizations, question the legitimacy of Pope Francis himself, etc.).

For a Catholic, these publications should be considered “occasions of sin” in the same way that one would judge fairly obvious secular publications today. You can’t read The Remnant and Catholic Family News without risking exposure to their “naughty pictures” of Catholicism.

You CAN criticize the Pope but, because “the Pope is different,” one must be VERY careful that, in doing so, one doesn’t lead people away from the Church into “real” or “practical” sedevacantism. The Pope represents the Church in a way that bishops and priests do not. You can criticize bishops against a “horizon” of love for the Church. You can’t criticize the Pope without risking a blurring of that “horizon” because the Pope represents and symbolizes the unity of the Church in a way that bishops and priests do not.

Please Support The Remnant
Help defend against the escalating attacks on Tradition by useful idiots of the Revolution


And Dismas Responded with...

AN EXERCISE

Obviously this would only be for someone with the time and inclination to do so, but it could be a useful exercise if only in more closely examining what on its face might appear, to the casual reader, to be a brief essay based upon solid Catholic teaching.

So for this exercise, we can more closely dissect the paragraphs written above. I'll not do that here. I'll leave that to anyone who has that sort of interest. I will, however, suggest some details.

1. The author has suggested a proposition and then defined a concept - that of "being in communion with the Church." It is laudable that he does so, because this is an elementary rule of argumentation (not synonymous with "arguing") - that all sides agree with the definition of the terms of the proposition at hand before proceeding. It is a waste of everyone's time to discuss a proposal when everyone does not agree as to what the proposal actually means. So from here we may decide if we agree with the author's definition of "being in communion with the Church." If we do not, we are stuck right here.

2. There are numerous good sources that describe the logical fallacies. Any of us who is interested can peruse one of those sources to see if the definition offered and its application qualify under any of the logical fallacies.

3. Apart from any logical fallacies that might be present, we immediately see that we are faced with yet another obstacle. Typically, definitions of terms are worded in ways that themselves do not require definition. Such is not the case here, because we are now presented, as a definition, a concept which is as confusing as the concept being defined. And for confirmation of this, we may simply accept what the author tells us, that "Communion with the Church and the Pope is a concept that is too soft and euphemistic to be useful anymore. It can mean almost anything, and it does mean whatever someone wants it to mean in most cases."

Most of us would wholeheartedly agree, I presume. We may note that this does not prevent the author from proposing to tell us what "Communion with the Church and the Pope" means. And we may ask ourselves, "Exactly who or what group is responsible for making 'Communion with the Church' such a difficult thing to discern?" Is it somehow those who have refused to accept innovation that came up with the ideas of "full Communion" (which suggests another type of Communion, perhaps to suggest that any religion is in some sort of Communion), "imperfect reconciliation", or any of the other "soft and mushy" descriptions (to borrow the author's observation)?

If I were forced to argue the point and had my choice, I would quickly opt for the side that it was not the "traditionalists" who muddied this water, but the modernists themselves, for other reasons. That would be the easier side to defend, I think.

At any rate, perhaps we can agree with the author that in today's Church, figuring out who is in Communion and who is not is, in some cases, challenging.

4. There would be another way to get a clue as to who is in Communion and who might not be, and that would be to turn to statements made by members of the "divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church" through the years. Unfortunately, there is nothing that solid there in the case of some groups and there are statements all over the place. Someone can construct a credible argument to support a few conflicting propositions here and, as the author correctly says, "It can mean almost anything, and it does mean whatever someone wants it to mean in most cases." Presumably, that would include the author.

Whew. All of this and we still cannot come down hard on whether certain groups - OK, let us say the name - the SSPX is or is not in Communion with the Catholic Church, especially if we accept what the members of the "divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church" have told us through the years - that something such as "partial Communion" exists.

There is a lot more to consider. For instance, if a group is "not in Communion" that once was in Communion, may I propose that such a group is schismatic? If one accepts that, then at least one must consider (if not regard it as incontrovertible proof) that schismatic groups make clear that they have no desire of any sort of Communion with the "divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church". This would be difficult to pin on the SSPX, what with their tendency to run to Rome when the pope calls, pray for the pope at all masses, offer Mass in Roman basilicas, etc., etc.

No - let us not immediately turn our nose up at that last paragraph, dismissing it as "worn-out defense of the SSPX." It is not a worn-out defense, it is a defense. Otherwise we have to define, "worn-out", and who wants to go there? Moreover, it is not offered or intended to be incontrovertible proof of actual Communion, "partial" or otherwise, on the part of the SSPX. It is one observation in this world of "mushy definitions" where “Communion with the Church and the Pope is a concept that is too soft and euphemistic to be useful anymore." And where "it can mean almost anything, and it does mean whatever someone wants it to mean in most cases."

All of this and we are still not past the definition of "Communion with the Church." That, in and of itself, says volumes. But we must move on. Few hardy souls have read this far.

Moving past the unagreed-upon definition of "Communion" the rest can be pretty quick. Construct a table with two headings: "Doctrinally-based teachings of the Holy Catholic Church" and "This good person's personal viewpoints".

From there, proceed to dissect the essay and look carefully for each contention. Then place that contention in either column and observe your finished product.

If I may presume, I would say that it appears that the author offers three propositions:

A. The SSPX is not in Communion with the Holy Catholic Church.

B. Anyone who supports the SSPX in any fashion becomes an enemy of the Holy Catholic Church and what they say or write should be avoided at the risk of one's eternal salvation.

C. One is allowed to be critical, even of the Pope, if that person or group "is part of and submissive to the divinely ordered hierarchical structure of the Church."

It must be admitted that the third proposition surprises a bit, but it is proposed and there it stands. Let us first decide whether, in defending this third proposition, any argument in its favor falls into one or the other of the categories proposed, i.e. "Doctrinally-based teaching of the Holy Catholic Church" or "This good person's personal viewpoints." Or perhaps the better question would be whether or not any evidence at all was offered for this proposition or whether it is a precept, however legitimate, proposed de novo by the author. Whatever the case may be, let the astute reader discern.

But there it is. Criticism of the Pope is acceptable, if only under the conditions proposed by the author. Further development of this particular topic would certainly be germane, but we will refrain from doing so only in the interest of respect for the poor reader who has suffered through all of this so far. It is likely that readers are perfectly capable of teasing out the various qualifications, questions and conclusions that can be drawn from this surprising admission.

Let me add that I am exceedingly willing (as if I had a choice) to respect the author's right to believe these three things. Let me even go so far as to say that, in the end, he might even be correct.

But the question remains as to whether he presents us with any evidence to support any of his conclusions, keeping in mind that personal viewpoint does not qualify as evidence. Let the reader be the judge, perhaps using the table you have constructed as a tool.

We remember also that a second elementary rule of argumentation is that the burden of proof rests upon the person suggesting the proposition. Again, let the reader be the judge as to whether or not the evidence offered supports these propositions.

With all humility intended, in this confused world of modernism and rejection of Scholasticism, we remain one of those persons who regards much of this, beyond just the definition of "Communion with the Church", as vague and undefined terminology, which "can mean almost anything, and...does mean whatever someone wants it to mean in most cases."


Last modified on Friday, November 7, 2014