Skip to main content

Neo-Catholicism Refuted in 1881! - Remnant

+
JMJ

The opponents of traditional Catholics usually resort to extreme accusations.

Here are some of those accusations debunked!

P^3

Courtesy of the Remnant



Neo-Catholicism Refuted in 1881! 

Written by  

Unfortunately for the Neo-Catholics, evidence once again shows that the positions of the so-called “radical traditionalists” are nothing more than the perennial teachings of the CatholicChurch. In an 1881 article published in The Month and Catholic Review, the Rev. Michael Gavin responded to a lengthy attack on papal infallibility launched by a Protestant named Dr. Littledale.  As it turns out, Dr. Littledale was as well informed on papal infallibility as most modern Neo-Catholic apologists. Fr. Gavin goes about setting the poor Dr. Littledale straight on several points, some of which could also serve as a lesson to our Neo-Catholic friends. I’ll now list a few Neo-Catholic whoppers, with quoted rebuttals from Fr. Gavin.

The Pope, Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Always Acts for the Good of the Church

Indeed, this is one of the oldest Neo-Catholic talking points. In most everything the Pope does, they tell us he can really do no wrong. And if he appears to do wrong, it is because we ourselves have not humbled our minds and wills and truly understood the serene wisdom behind the Pope’s latest confusing words or apparently scandalous actions. Fr. Gavin disagrees:The Pope may do a stupid or an imprudential act productive of damage to souls; he may, even in his private capacity, subscribe to an heretical creed...

Papal Excommunications are Infallible

In an overzealous attempt to discredit Archbishop Lefebvre for all time and make his future rehabilitation by Rome impossible, some Neo-Catholics have put forward the idea that anyone who is excommunicated by a Pope and dies in that state is damned for all eternity. To the contrary, Fr. Gavin reaffirms the “radical traditionalist” notion that popes can be wrong on this matter:

It is further alleged by Dr. Littledale, that Liberius condemned St. Athanasius as a heretic. Even supposing he did, theologians allow that the Popes can make mistakes by condemning the innocent or acquitting the guilty, and be a monster of iniquity in addition, and still remain infallible in the only sense in which the Council of the Vatican declares him to  possess this privilegeIn judgments about persons, the Roman Pontiff can go wrong: for informers may mislead  him, false documents may be introduced, and the  like, without detriment to his Infallibility.

The Pope, by Virtue of His Infallibility, Can “Develop Doctrine” by Issuing Changes or Corrections to Prior Church Teaching Which We Must Submit to in Humble Obedience

And now for the coup de grace! We have heard Neo-Catholic apologists tell us, ad nauseam, that any papal pronouncement on a matter of doctrine must be submitted to out of obedience. Even, they tell us, if said pronouncement appears to change the meaning or contradict a previous dogma or doctrine.

They then shamelessly hide behind Cardinal Newman’s “development of doctrine” idea, using Newman to stand for the proposition that a dogma or doctrine can somehow “develop” into something entirely new. Of course they won’t admit the new idea is actually “new” even though neither they, nor the Vatican for the last 50+ years, can satisfactorily explain how the new and old teachingscan be reconciled. To combat this utterly confusing and unworkable view of the “development of doctrine, I’d like to end with Fr. Gavin’s excellent and crystal clear explanation ofthe limits to Papal Infallibility which, surprisingly enough, perfectly coincides with the “radical traditionalist” position. Enjoy.

From Fables About Papal Infallibilityby the Rev. Michael Gavin, 1881:

The Catholic  Church,  as  Dr. Littledale  remarks, maintains that its teaching now is  exactly what it has been from the beginning. Yes; its teaching never contradicts what it  has authoritatively taught in other ages, but it may be on certain points much clearer, fuller, more explicit now than ever it was beforeThe belief of Catholics is ever the  same, that is, the Church never denies what she has once taught, nor can she ever teach, or by her universal practice sanction in matters of faith or morals, what she may hereafter deny or repudiateThe prerogative of Infallibility has been granted to her simply and solely that she may guard and faithfully transmit the body of doctrine entrusted to her on the death of the last apostle.  Catholic theologians teach that nonew revelation affecting the doctrine that binds on the belief of all has been given to the Church since the hour when StJohn yielded his virgin soul to God.ThChurch  can neither add nor take one jot or tittle from that body of truth which as a sacred heirloom was left to Peter and the Apostles, by them to be banded on to their successors until the second comingof our LordThat doctrine is found in the books of the Old and New Testament, which the Church regards as the Word of God, and  in  tradition, that is, in those unwritten sayings received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ, or which the Apostles themselves have mentioned at the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Who has kept them sound and intact in the Church. It would be impossible for sayings and truths to pass from mouth to mouth during a long period without being  much changed in the process were it not for the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit; that overshadows clergy and people in subjection to the Roman Pontiff, guarding them  through him, and because of their union with him, from all error in faith.  Dr. Littledale admits that when heresies  have arisen in the Church, the Supreme   Pontiff and Bishops in communion with him have examined Scripture and the writings of  the  Fathers.
Every practice and creed is sanctioned or condemned according to the relation that it  bears to the faith as handed down by the Apostles. From the First Council of Nice, in  325, to the Council of the Vatican, in 1870, the same truth is ever inculcated, that the assistance of the Holy Ghost bas been promisedto the successors of St Peter, not that  they might find out some new doctrine by some fresh revelation, but that they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Apostolic revelation or the deposit of faith  entrusted to their keeping. Novelty is suspected and shunned, antiquity is followed and prized.

Our faith is Identical with that professed by the Apostles. They clearly recognized all the   dogmas that ever have been defined, or that ever can be defined, by Pope or Council. They taught them all to their disciplesthough notnecessarily inall the fullness of form in which they are viewednow. It is quite true that from time to time the Church defines some truths which Catholics in previous ages were not obliged to. Believe. Before 1854  it was not an article of Catholic faith that ouLady was sinless in conception; nor before July 1870, that the Pope, singly and apart from his brethren in the Episcopate, is ever free from error when he teaches the whole Church on points of faith or morals. Yet nowhere is the  Church's oneness of  belief  seen  more  clearly  than  in  these  supposed diversities, which we consider as development of doctrine. The Church is not dead. She is made up of living members.

She is a 
living bodySince the Church lives, growth is the very law of her lifeBut this growth, while it implies development and expansion, forbids all change. The growth of a body is the best proof of its lifeand health. As ages glide by, the full force, consequence, and meaning of the truth, hitherto imperfectly apprehended, is brought out by the labour of theologians, the discussions of the schools, the writings of the Fathers, and the  decrees of Councils"Such development is nothing but the  new form, explanation, or carrying out of what in substance was held from the first, what the Apostles have said but have not recorded in writing, or would necessarily have said in our circumstances, or if they had been asked, or in view of certain uprisings of error, and in that sense really portions of that  legacy of truth of which the Church in all her members, but more especially in her hierarchy, is the divinely appointed trustee.”


It belongs to the Church from time to time, as she thinks fit, to tell the world all that is bound up in any truth of Catholic belief which without such declaration would either be  hidden or misunderstood. In brief, all that the Church does is to draw forth, illustrate, make clear, confirm, or apply to particular concrete instances, what has been already revealed. The Churchcan neither discover, nor add, nor changeWhole and entire she has received a body of truth fromher Founder, whole and entire she willkeep it. That doctrine which the Church has to guard initself never changes and never increases; our knowledge of it may grow clearer, and does increase.We willingly allow that certain doctrines now declared of Catholic faith were not clearly recognized by certain portions of the ChurchEither they were not clearly contained in Scripture, or the voice of tradition seemed indistinct. The Church meanwhile kept silent. It is not alwaysprudent to exercise an act of supreme authority. Her theologians read, and wrote, and discussed, missioners preached, holy souls prayedCircumstances arose that compelled her to speak with no wavering voiceThe Church can never define what was at any time unknown to the whole body of the faithful. She may and  she does define certain  doctrines which portions of the Church, even in communion with Rome, have either doubted or deniedOnce Rome speaks, controversy ceases; to the teaching of the  Supreme Pontiff all bend, and from his ruling there is no appeal.  The two hundred  millions of Catholics now spread all over the earth have all one faith.They believe what the Apostles held, though not with that clearness, preciseness, definiteness which the Apostles possessed because of their extraordinary endowmentsThose that come after us can never be askedto hold anything at variance with what the Church now teaches,or with what she sanctions by her universal practice. For them the truths  of faith may be far clearer than for us, their reach may be more widely seen, their connection more fully grasped; what are now considered only safe and probable  opinions may here­ after be binding on the belief of all as necessary portions of  the CreedBut never can the Church, through the mouth of Pope or Council, contradict  what she has once taught, or permit, as Dr. Littledale falsely asserts, doctrines  which are not developments at all, but blank contradictions of the ancient faith.

Heresies will 
always exist, and usagesand tenets willever be in vogue incertain portions of the Church which she can never allowFor these the Church is not responsibleHer doctrines are taught by her universal practice, by the solemn definitions of her Head, by the daily, hourly, and no less binding teaching of her ordinary magisterium-the Bishops of the Catholic world in union with the Holy SeeNor can the Pope, as Dr. Littledale may suppose, at his caprice and good pleasure make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition.

The Pope
 is tied up and limited to the Divine revelation, and to the truths contained inlegitimately flowing from, or necessaryto theguardianship ofthat revelationThe Pope is bound by existing creeds and preceding definitionsIn matters of faith and morals the  Pope cannot change or sanction at hisarbitrary decision. He is merely trustee  and  guardian of the doctrine our Lord gave, which by the Divine assistance will always be  safe in the keeping of the Pope.


Rev. Michael Gavin, 1881

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Church Militant TV and the SSPX - Again

+ JMJ The old narrative used to be that the SSPX was 'schismatic' and 'excommunicated'. Now the excommunication has been lifted for a number of years and the only ones who think it still has effect are the 'resistors'. That leaves the other opponents of the SSPX with the label 'schismatic'. Make it clear, the conservative Catholics have issues with the SSPX probably because they violate some of their assumptions about the Faith and this crisis of the Church. Church Militant TV is one of these the exists along the Catholic thought spectrum. They like the Traditional Mass but must ensure that they don't get tarred with the same 'schismatic' brush that the liberals use against the SSPX.  So what do they do, they use the same brush against the SSPX. The funny thing is that even when the Church does speak, they don't want to listen and persist in calling the SSPX 'schismatic'. Here's a transcript of the latest s...

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too th...

The Position of the SSPX on Canonizations by the Saint Factory

+ JMJ I have sometimes been criticized for including 'St' as a title for Pope John Paul II et al. I've given my reasons here  in a discussion with Alex Long. The question is one of prudence in discussions with ntCatholics and in some cases with tCatholics. In discussions with:  ntCatholics, I will use the title in order to continue the discussion and help them arrive at a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. tCatholics, I will use the title in order to broaden their perspective on the doctrine of dogmatic facts. This broader perspective is, in my opinion, essential maintaining a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. So from a doctrinal position, I have written the article Dogmatic Fact of Fancy  and includes a reference on canonizations. Now, I know the position of the SSPX is that the canonizations are doubtful (see references below) and I also know of at least one non-SSPX theologian who agrees with the level of doubt du...