The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

The real danger of the blogosphere is that anyone (present company included) can setup a soap box for their own opinion and pass it off a fact.

Case in point is the article by Professor Robert George (Mr. Verrecchio's comments below).

One element that I would like to highlight is the following:

In particular, the SSPX rejects the teachings of “Dignitatis Humanae” (on religious liberty) and “Nostra Aetate” (on the Jewish people and non-Christian religions).

First there is an error in the citation.  The SSPX, as I understand it, does not 'reject' Nostra Aetate so much as deems it an ambiguous document that can be interpreted in the light of tradition.  In other words, Nostra Aetate doesn't say what many people think it says.

Actually, the word 'reject' is not exactly correct. The theological stance of the SSPX is that there are elements within some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council that logically contradict prior magisterium.  In total there are four points (see below) that are held to be in contradiction.

• "The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'
• "The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'
• "The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'
• "The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

It is important to note that 'Nostra Aetate' is not within this list.  If Professor George were to present to the SSPX an interpretation of 'Nostra Aetate' that was consistent with prior magisterium, then I submit that the SSPX would have no problem with such an interpretation.

Attached below is Mr. Verrecchio's comments on the article.

P^3




Courtesy of Louie Verrecchio

First Things recently ran a piece by Professor Robert George entitled, Our Big Brothers in the Faith, that although ostensibly written in response to the SSPX members who disrupted an interfaith service at the Cathedral in Buenos Aires commemorating Kristallnacht (a two day offensive against Jews that took place in Germany on November 9 and 10, 1938), it’s boilerplate post-conciliar, Nostra Aetate -  John Paul “the” ahem… “Great” inspired religious diplomacy cloaked in righteous indignation.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of genuine indignation in the article, but rather than confining it to the actions of a handful of protesters (much less engaging the relative merits of their own indignation), George instead takes aim at the SSPX more generally.

After trotting out that worn out old saw about Society members “thinking they are more Catholic than the Pope,” George, in pot-calling-kettle-black fashion, picks up the nearest ferula and plays a little “if I were pope,” saying:

“Although I understand the efforts of the Vatican to reason with these people in the hope of persuading them to accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council from which they vehemently dissent, these efforts were, in my opinion, doomed from the start by the sheer intransigence and fanaticism of the SSPX.”

He continues:

“I do not question the importance of avoiding schisms whenever possible, but the SSPX simply does not believe what the Church solemnly teaches in certain key areas. In particular, the SSPX rejects the teachings of ‘Dignitatis Humanae’ (on religious liberty) and ‘Nostra Aetate’ (on the Jewish people and non-Christian religions).”

Herein lies the second irony in as many paragraphs as apparently Professor George thinks the Second Vatican Council is more Catholic than Christ!

Nostra Aetate, as the previous post addresses, suggests that the Jews, a People whose identity “in our time” is firmly established upon their rejection of Jesus Christ, form the one people of God along with the children of the Church, in spite of the fact that Christ Himself said that in rejecting Him one rejects the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who sent Him.

A disinterested Buddhist can see how utterly illogical the conciliar proposition is, (provided, of course, that Jesus is to be believed) and yet Professor George, one of the shining stars of neo-con academia, simply cannot understand why a bona fide Catholic would “vehemently dissent” from such a “solemn teaching” as this.

Only in the disoriented world of Robert George and such esteemed confreres as George Weigel, and John Paul  II for that matter, is siding with Christ over the text of Vatican II an unforgivable offense.