Pre-Pandemic, I noticed that Dave Armstrong reacted to my reaction of his reaction to Dr. Taylor's book "Infiltration" (link). He seems to have been insulted by my rant (I fully acknowledge that it was a rant) and he posted a counter-rant here (link). I am surprised that he decided I was worthy of such notice, but I guess my shot that he was self-taught and self-published offended him. It was not worthy of a Catholic, but as I noted it was a rant and I apologize.
So, now that I've caught up on my draft backlog, I thought I may as well have a look at Mr. Dave Armstrong's primary thesis that reactionaries focus on three elements:
- Pope-bashing.
- Vatican II-bashing.
- Pauline / New / “Novus Ordo” / ordinary form Mass-bashing.
I would like to point out that I'm not certain that Dr. Marshall's thinking is 'reactionary' and an abyss of 'doom-and-gloom'? It is most likely how he sees the situation and since it is is not aligned with Mr. Armstrong's perspective of the state of the Catholic Church, it strikes him as 'doom-and-gloom'. Of course after decades of persecution, I acknowledge that I have met a number of Catholics with that view and not all are 'Traditional'. However all is not lost, as Catholics we know that Christ promised that the Church would not fail and that there will be successors of St. Peter until the end of the world. It's a Dogma and that is pretty clear.
What is equally clear is that there have been and will be future occupants of the See of Peter who are not worthy of the position. It is recorded history and it is clear that the actions of Popes St. Paul VI, St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and ... of course ... Francis are also not beyond reproach.
First, the use of the word "bashing" can be defined as severe criticism. In some cases, the actions of the aforementioned pontiffs may merit a 'severe criticism'. For example, kissing the Koran (Pope St. John Paul II), inviting non-Catholic as well as non-Christian religions to a prayer meeting (Pope St. John Paul II) as an act of syncretism (Catholic Culture definition link), persecuting priests who wanted to continue saying the Tridentine Mass (Pope St. Paul VI), approving a "banal on-the-spot product" (Catholic Herald link) even after the bishops rejected the 'proto-typical mass' that was presented to them (also Pope St. Paul VI). I haven't even started on Pope Francis, but that list would be long and inglorious.
Suffice to say that Pope's are neither white nor black, they are speckled and outside of certain conditions very fallible. The problem with the Pope's from Paul VI onwards is they they were preceded by a series of pontiffs whose collection of white splotches far outnumbered the black splotches on their pontificate.
Rational critiques of Vatican II are many and have been dealt with in other places. But the reality is it isn't all bad. In fact, it reinforces the Dogma of Outside the Church there is No Salvation, which I handily demonstrated in a presentation to Catholic Men (including a Jesuit who found his way to the presentation). You could've heard a pin drop when they realized that I was quoting V2 in support of Catholic Dogma. They were expecting some bashing I suppose.
Mr. Armstrong's perspective on Traditionalist views on V2 seems to be a caricature. The reality is that the rule that the SSPX uses regarding V2 is the theological note that was given at the end of the Council:
... When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “Can you not give us what the theologians call the ‘theological note of the Council?’” He replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” (SSPXasia link)
In this we can see the root of the Pope Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity. What is obviously simply repeating previous Dogma: Accept. Those elements that are ambiguous, accept with an interpretation consistent with traditional authoritative teaching. That which cannot be reconciled, well it needs to be amended. It is this last bit that definitely created a bit of trouble in the doctrinal discussions in 2012.
Of course, we now have Traditiones Custodes, as well as other pontifical acts, to understand that even the first two elements cannot be tolerated within the Catholic Church. Catholics cannot accept the Second Vatican Council with reservations, it must be whole-hearted acceptance of everything ... and it appears that includes the "spirit of the council" - whatever that means.
So, I have covered Mr. Armstrong three points: Popes, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. Mr. Armstrong labels as 'reactionary' those Catholics who disagree with this fifty-plus year old 'new' direction. Reactionary is defined by Oxford (via Google) as a "person or a set of views opposing political or social liberalization or reform" as a noun it includes "traditionalist". Oxford lists as 'opposite' radicals and progressivists.
So, I guess it is a label that can be used, but I have to ask if Mr. Armstrong is not a 'reactionary', then is he a progressive radical? Maybe somewhere in between, but if we must give a label to baptized people who believe that the Catholic Church doesn't merely subsist in the Church of Christ, but is the Church of Christ, submit to all the other Dogmas (link),and wants to receive the Sacraments of the Catholic Church in the pre-conciliar form, how about we just call them Catholic.
Of course, I doubt that this would do because the persecution that abated with Summorum Pontificum has been re-ignited.
I wonder if Mr. Armstrong will come across this short post in his searches. If so, apologies, I don't intend to do a blow-by-blow rebuttal of your article on Dr. Marshall's book. I just wonder if you would agree that the "Rhine Flows into the Tiber" was a factual representation of what transpired.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment