Such is the title of a two-volume opus by Peter Kwasniewski, published by the admirable Arouca Press.
I commend it without reservation. The second volume, the larger one, contains papers and articles which Peter has published over the years, and is the sort of book that you can open at random ... and read ... and benefit mightily from. Or, having heard somebody's name (either of a Goody or of a Baddy!) you dive into the index. (I'm in the index and I'm a Goody.)
Volume I, on the other hand, comes closer to systematic Theology. The structure upon which it hangs begins with subjects such as Earlier Papal lapses. And this is theologically important.
There are different ways of 'progressing' Theology: there is the a priori, which means starting with basic principles and building stage by stage until you have constructed an impressive edifice as splendid as the Eiffel Tower or the Tower of Babel.
On the other hand, there is the historical method, which means that you have to be very careful not to argue yourself into the position of asserting theological 'principles' which can be falsified by contradictory historical evidence from earlier in Church History.
The First Vatican Council was initially driven by the a priori method ("The Lord said so-and-so to Peter and therefore S Peter's successors must logically have the following prerogatives"). But this rather dangerous procedure was controlled and kept in check by the presence at the Council of some very distinguished Church historians ("If you say that a certain type of Papal pronouncement or enactment must be infallible, how are you going to get round the fact that Pope X did Y and said Z and everybody would now agree that that is rubbish?").
This is why the Decrees defining Papal Infallibility and Primacy are so restrained ... why S John Henry Newman had so little trouble with the texts of these Decrees. But he feared the continuing energy of the crazed and rabid Hyperpapalists of his own day, who aimed at "enlarging the province of Infallibility". He was even prepared to write that "we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council, or that there will be another Pope" ... which, mark you, at that time meant 'hoping' for the death of Pius IX.
But he did not 'hope' in vain ... and he got that red hat of martyrdom and of empire at the beginning of the next Pontificate!
I think I hear you all clamouring for him to be declared a Doctor of the Church! All power to your collective elbows!! Dottore subito!
And, if you like the sort of mind-games that proliferate at the backs of modern newspapers, here is my humble suggestion for this morning: skip the Sudoku, pass over the Times Crossword, and compose a modern equivalent (within the bounds of decency) of Newman's lucid words which I have quoted above in red!
Difficult, isn't it? But I beg you to persevere.
Dear Reverend “Goody”.
ReplyDeleteThank You for all that you do.
in Domino
After a necessarily brief consideration today, the only change I suggest is to substitute the word 'council' with 'synodal path'
ReplyDeleteThe other day I was at a morning liturgy at which the presider told us that Saint Francis went to meet with the Muslims to tell them he knew they worshipped God and he continued in this universal salvation vein by telling us that Muslims and members of the Baptist Church would also be going to heaven and that, like what happened upon the death of Jphn Paul II, when Francis dies the people will start shouting Santo Subito because Francis got rid of the red shoes which John 23rd wanted to do but was prevented from doing so by the Cardinals.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the Eiffel Tower. An American woman, Erika Eiffel (maiden name Erika LaBrie -literally, Erika the cheese) married the Eiffel Tower (it was an outside ceremony) and one wishes that the theology of The Bishop of Rome, over time, proves to be as fruitful as the marriage of the lovely Eiffels.
Thank you for this.
ReplyDeleteThe historical grounding was very useful, keeping the argument within actual words from actual people.
I start to get cross when I read the "nebulous and imprecise" (cf Juncker, C-J., and May, T., 14th Dec. 2018) vesco-speak, without "robust exchange" (ibid.).
Imagine what the essays of the hyper-ultras were like; narrative drift, vague assertions, the blank look at questions, appalling footnotes, and absolutely no bibliography.
Oh for a decent argument!
Surely, Pope Francis is the sovereign cure for the urge to enlarge the province of Infallibility.
ReplyDeleteIn an article in La Stampa, Pope Francis cites St Vincent of Lerins as having said, “God gives some Popes to the Church, God tolerates some Popes in the Church, and God inflicts some Popes on the Church.”
ReplyDeleteFaithful to this magisterial teaching, we may update St John Henry Newman's sentiment as follows:
"We must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope whom God has inflicted on the Church will not continue in Office, or that there will be another Pope".
https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2017/02/20/news/why-did-you-become-pope-francis-explains-the-conclave-to-children-1.34656933