tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post3753653093663137020..comments2024-03-26T12:56:54.350+00:00Comments on LMS Chairman: Fastiggi & Goldstein reply: I respondLatin Mass Societyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17951084157414901564noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-45346839996798093672017-10-09T16:41:32.465+01:002017-10-09T16:41:32.465+01:00'We wonder why, then, you include twelve passa...'We wonder why, then, you include twelve passages of Amoris laetitia in the Correctio, which you say— “in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions” of the Holy Father— “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” '<br /><br />Because that is the case. This really isn't so difficult: AL could be read in an orthodox sense, but the interpretation being given it doesn't allow it. I think I've said that often enough now.<br /><br />As to the Pope's intentions, these are the intentions being imputed to him by his *supporters*, such as the bishops of Malta, and he is not correcting them. It is enough for us to say that what he is doing is an invitation, without seeking to judge what exactly he intends, since we are not in a position to judge that.<br /><br />It seems you are now admitting that we have presented a large amount of object evidence which you have not even addressed, let alone refuted, so thank you.<br /><br />I and others have already addressed your La Stampa arguments.<br /><br />I think we've both said enough to allow our readers to make their own minds up.Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-25191343068757445112017-10-08T02:02:20.253+01:002017-10-08T02:02:20.253+01:00If ever there were any doubt that DT's intelle...If ever there were any doubt that DT's intellect lacked analytical power, what he just said proved it. Why is he so svared of the SSPX. Is he scared of being prosecuted for heresy or something if there is a restoration, the old twit??Albrecht von Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996637489269911349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-11166242680447764512017-10-08T02:00:47.366+01:002017-10-08T02:00:47.366+01:00If ever there were any doubt that DT's intelle...If ever there were any doubt that DT's intellect lacked analytical power, what he just said proved it. Why is he so svared of the SSPX. Is he scared of being prosecuted for heresy or something if there is a restoration, the old twit??Albrecht von Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996637489269911349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-87783163904182050052017-10-08T00:50:55.064+01:002017-10-08T00:50:55.064+01:00Dear Prof. Shaw,
Thank you very much for your lat...Dear Prof. Shaw,<br /><br />Thank you very much for your latest reply. We are delighted that you agree with Cardinal Müller that Amoris laetitia has “no new doctrine … but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments.”<br /><br />We wonder why, then, you include twelve passages of Amoris laetitia in the Correctio, which you say— “in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions” of the Holy Father— “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” We also wonder why you mention—in the first paragraph of the Correctio—the propagation of heresies “effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds, and omissions of Your Holiness.”<br /><br />If the propagation of heresies is, in part, “effected” by Amoris laetitia, then it would seem that the papal exhortation is a cause for the dissemination of heresies. But if you agree with Cardinal Müller’s assessment of the exhortation, then you should revise the Correctio and omit any mention of Amoris laetitia as a cause for the spread of heresies.<br /><br />We also note that you believe “the Pope is doing something which Cardinal Müller is far too polite to even consider, at least publicly: inviting Bishops and the faithful to ignore and act contrary to doctrine and sacramental discipline.” In effect, you are saying that you are reading into Pope Francis something subjective that others such as Cardinal Müller do not see. This only proves the point we made in our last reply. You are relying on subjective impressions that you believe are superior to the impressions of others. <br /><br />You say you have “[presented] at length a large amount of objective evidence” which we have continued to decline to assess. It would take a much longer response to show how each one of your cases of “objective evidence” allows for a more benign interpretation. Moreover, your accusations are directed against Pope Francis, not us, so it would not be appropriate or possible for us to speak for the Holy Father in terms of his intentions regarding each of the statements, deeds, and omissions you bring forth as “evidence.”<br /><br />You complain that we have not supplied adequate reasons why we question whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity—and this despite the arguments we put forth in our La Stampa article “Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger’s rules for faithful theological discourse” and our subsequent responses to you. It seems that you missed our point. Those who are accused of spreading heresies are entitled, in justice, to due process and a fair hearing. You, though, have publicly accused the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies based on evidence that is colored by subjective impressions.<br /><br />We know you believe you are acting for the good of the Church. That is why we respectfully urge you to consider the harm your actions can cause to the reputation of the Holy Father and ecclesial communion.<br /><br />Let us trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church and pray for Pope Francis.<br /><br />In Cordibus Jesu et Mariae,<br /><br />Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. and Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D.Robert Fastiggihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673011762019530760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-86968223177498430202017-10-07T14:50:06.251+01:002017-10-07T14:50:06.251+01:00It seems the world's media disagree with his a...It seems the world's media disagree with his assessment.Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-32146332041147771792017-10-07T11:24:56.513+01:002017-10-07T11:24:56.513+01:00I don't often agree with that old lefty libera...I don't often agree with that old lefty liberal Damian Thompson, but his comments on the Correction are entirely appropriate:<br /><br />"It’s boring, and the list of signatories is unimpressive and badly judged. Who thought it was a good idea to ask the head of the SSPX to sign? Talk about playing into the hands of liberals who want to portray all orthodox Catholics as crypto-Lefebvrists."ALEXANDER VIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00596556221149864809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-33422339167811900262017-10-07T11:10:40.697+01:002017-10-07T11:10:40.697+01:00I think we are going round in circles at this poin...I think we are going round in circles at this point. Some brief rejoinders.<br /><br />You say: 'In so many words, you acknowledge that all you can present is your subjective belief that Pope Francis is doing what you claim he is doing, viz., effecting the propagation of heresies in the Church.'<br /><br />False. As I noted, we present at length a large amount of objective evidence, which you have and continue to decline to assess. I am getting the impression now of a small child with his fingers in his ears.<br /><br />You say: 'What we do question, though, is whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity that bind all of the faithful. You say that our “bald assertion” that you have failed with respect to due reverence, etc. “is no argument.” But all you can counter with is your “bald assertion” that you have observed due reverence, common advantage and so on.'<br /><br />False, also. If you criticise our act, it is for you to bring forward reasons and evidence to back up your criticism, not for us to answer an argument against it which has not been made. (How are we supposed to do that, anyway?)<br /><br />As for your quotation of Cardinal Müller, I agree with every word of it. Your conception of our position clearly needs a little refining. <br /><br />According to us, the Pope is doing something which Cardinal Müller is far too polite even to consider, at least publicly: inviting Bishops and the faithful to *ignore* and *act contrary to* doctrine and sacramental discipline. Pope Francis does so, I am sure, in order to help people in difficult situations.Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-44006022748430159382017-10-07T09:24:29.279+01:002017-10-07T09:24:29.279+01:00I think subjectivity is part and parcel of this wh...I think subjectivity is part and parcel of this whole question, and that's precisely the problem.<br /><br />The Holy Father has conducted himself in such a way that members of the hierarchy and of the faithful are forming radically opposed subjective judgements about a controversial and important matter concerning authoritative Catholic teachings.<br /><br />That in itself would be a serious problem. It is made more severe by the fact that the Holy Father seems, on the face of it, to be at least tacitly favouring the heterodox interpretation over the orthodox one, thus allowing heterodox interpreters to claim Papal support.<br /><br />This is precisely the kind of scenario in which the Pope ought to resolve the controversy so as to ensure unity within the Church. Pope Francis's failure to do so, despite repeated requests, seems to this laymen at least to represent a clear threat to the unity of the Church.<br /><br />The problem is precisely that different subjective judgements are in conflict, so it is no solution to say that unproblematic subjective judgements remain possible, and leave it at that.Riddleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18352250581662283650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-72269411208555341122017-10-06T22:44:10.697+01:002017-10-06T22:44:10.697+01:00And only those that treat of faith or morals. Adm...And only those that treat of faith or morals. Administrative or disciplinary anathemas are not included, unless they touch on faith or morals as well.<br />Albrecht von Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996637489269911349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-46155560180991204172017-10-06T22:43:59.769+01:002017-10-06T22:43:59.769+01:00The pope has made clear bow he expects AL to be in...The pope has made clear bow he expects AL to be interpreted.Albrecht von Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996637489269911349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-24566707719686068172017-10-06T22:42:02.459+01:002017-10-06T22:42:02.459+01:00And only those that treat of faith or morals. Adm...And only those that treat of faith or morals. Administrative or disciplinary anathemas are not included, unless they touch on faith or morals as well.<br />Albrecht von Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996637489269911349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-7970376963673307382017-10-06T22:06:15.994+01:002017-10-06T22:06:15.994+01:00Dear Dr. Shaw,
We appreciate your attempt to resp...Dear Dr. Shaw,<br /><br />We appreciate your attempt to respond to our seven points, but you argue in a way that concedes the main point we are making. In so many words, you acknowledge that all you can present is your subjective belief that Pope Francis is doing what you claim he is doing, viz., effecting the propagation of heresies in the Church. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but we find your accusations unjust and excessive. As we noted, even private theologians accused of heresy are entitled to the due process outlined in the CDF document, Ratio agendi of 1997. But you and your associates have accused the Roman Pontiff of facilitating the spread of heresies, and all you can present are some references, assertions, and subjective beliefs, which are all open to question. Because the Holy Father did not respond to your accusations submitted at first privately, you have taken it upon yourselves to make your accusations public via the mass media. Thus, you have publicly accused the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies.<br /><br />We do not question your faith or your sincerity, and we are aware that you believe you are acting for the good of the Church. Nor do we dispute your rights under canon 212§3. What we do question, though, is whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity that bind all of the faithful. You say that our “bald assertion” that you have failed with respect to due reverence, etc. “is no argument.” But all you can counter with is your “bald assertion” that you have observed due reverence, common advantage and so on. This, though, actually supports our major point. You are using subjective impressions and interpretations to accuse the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies. The force of your argument is that you believe your impressions are true. This, though, will be convincing to those who share your impressions but not to those who don’t. It seems to us that you are arguing in a circle. Your impressions are true because you believe they are true. You admit that others disagree with your impressions, but this does not falsify your impressions because you believe they are true. <br /><br />There are other points you bring up that we could challenge, such as your understanding of magisterial documents as well as your interpretations of Mt 18: 15–17 and Gal 2:11. These might be interesting discussions, but we would rather focus on the main point we have presented above. We know you can appeal to a few Cardinals, bishops, and theologians who have also raised questions about Amoris laetita and its applications. We, though, could counter with many other Cardinals, bishops, and theologians who have expressed appreciation for the exhortation and who agree with these words of Cardinal Müller:<br /><br />"In Amoris Laetitia there’s no new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine, but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments. The only question is their pastoral application in extraordinary situations. The Pope will not and cannot change either the doctrine or the sacraments. What he wants is to help couples in very difficult circumstances as a good shepherd, but in accord with the word of God" (Interview with Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, Sept. 28, 2017).<br /><br />We know you disagree with his Eminence in this analysis, and that is your privilege. Your disagreement, though, does not disprove what the good Cardinal says. We certainly accept the right of Catholics to raise questions and ask for clarifications from the Holy Father. We believe, however, that the accusations contained in the Correctio are excessive and based on subjective impressions that are highly questionable.<br /><br />Sincerely yours in Christ,<br /><br />Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. and Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D.<br />Robert Fastiggihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673011762019530760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-41275563403505092982017-10-06T21:28:22.401+01:002017-10-06T21:28:22.401+01:00Only the anathemas of a Council are infallible.
...Only the anathemas of a Council are infallible. <br /><br />This Council was not claiming to be establishing the truth of the question by a legislative act, it claimed to describe what had always been the case. It is evident in light of scholarship since the 15th century that it had not been the case that in earlier centuries the matter of the sacrament had always been the handing over of the chalice.Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-69397072002804772582017-10-06T21:25:26.889+01:002017-10-06T21:25:26.889+01:00More examples of "You can't say anything ...More examples of "You can't say anything against the Pope" rather than dealing with any of the substantive issues raised in the Correctio. It doesn't appear that they have read it through, just like it appears they are completely oblivious to what is going on.<br /><br />Thank you for organizing the Correctio, Dr. Shaw - it is making a difference and will at least be a marker in history for those who will correct the errors later. As for the signatories being a lot of "marginal figures", and the effort being "of no significance" it sure is generating a lot of reaction. Deacon Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03549825303646357455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-89477306083649745742017-10-06T21:25:19.028+01:002017-10-06T21:25:19.028+01:00Oops! Yes corrected.Oops! Yes corrected.Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-71902876303608326362017-10-06T18:55:55.295+01:002017-10-06T18:55:55.295+01:00"An example of this last case which is not co...<i>"An example of this last case which is not controversial is the claim of the Council of Florence-Ferrara that the sacramental ‘matter’ in priestly ordination is not the laying-on of hands, but the handing over of the chalice. We commonly say that statements of General Councils other than anathemas have non-infallible teaching authority from the Ordinary Magisterium. In such a case, however, it would be more accurate to say that this statement is not a statement of the Ordinary Magisterium at all, since it contradicts the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium cannot contradict itself."</i><br />***<br />Erroneous. <br />***<br />It is not that the XVII Ecumenical Council, The COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE (1438-1445)/ Pope Eugenius [Eugene IV] stated a non-infallible teaching, which is an impossibility for a valid council on matters of faith or morals, but because this matter pertained to what the Church in her authority can establish, change or abrogate, as Pope Pius XII explained when he made the change. Cf. http://disq.us/p/1ivnknsthewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-8255633011054543012017-10-06T18:41:10.441+01:002017-10-06T18:41:10.441+01:00... in September 2016, more than two years ago.
**... <i>... in September 2016, more than <b>two</b> years ago.</i><br />***<br />... more than a year ago. [We are still in 2017].thewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-80613348311501564042017-10-06T13:48:45.692+01:002017-10-06T13:48:45.692+01:00Excellent responses. I believe the Holy Ghost is ...Excellent responses. I believe the Holy Ghost is actively working amongst those opposing the heresies & blasphemies being promulgated by this papacy that has done untold damage to His Church on earth. It cannot be long now before this Masonic/Marxist/Modernist faction in the CC is completely annihilated. They don't show any respect for God (His Commandments, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Sacraments) Our Lady (still no consecration of Russia) or Jesus. According to PF “having a personal relationship with Jesus is dangerous and very harmful“ @yournewswire.com. Keep up the good work.Ana Milanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13614286775064340959noreply@blogger.com