“Unlike some Remnant columnists, I was much encouraged by the Declaration Dominus Jesus, which, like Protestant spokesmen in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland, I consider to be an unequivocal reaffirmation of the nature of the Catholic Church as the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. I hope to explain my reasons early next year, if my Una Voce responsibilities allow me the time, and I will look forward to a lively debate in The Remnant.”

“Editor: In your December 31 issue, you published a yearly review by Mr. Michael Davies in which he stated that he believed that Dominus Jesus is an ‘unequivocal affirmation of the nature of the Catholic Church as the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ.’ He disagrees with ‘some columnists’ who hold the opposite and offers to prove his affirmation.

“Dr. Marian T. Horvat and I, who have the pleasure to write for The Remnant, have sustained in its pages precisely the opposite of Mr. Davies’ statement: that Dominus Jesus is not an ‘unequivocal affirmation’ of the past doctrine of the Catholic Church, and that it affirms that the uniqueness belongs no longer to the Catholic Church, but to a strange new ‘Church of Christ’ which includes Protestants of all denominations and Schismatics of all fragmentations.

“So, I find myself curious about what cards Mr. Davies might have up his sleeve to present his case. I am, therefore, writing to accept the ‘lively polemic’ he proposed on the topic.”

1. An incessant request for other sources of information;
2. Several adulterations of the opponent's argument;
3. Various other fraudulent ruses; and
4. Fleeing from the arguments to which he had no reply.

Guimarães closed his piece inviting Davies to return to the discussion on Dominus Jesus.

  “A Conversion?”
by Atila Sinke Guimarães

  “Dominus Jesus: Something Borrowed, Nothing New”
by Dr. Marian T. Horvat

  “A Letter from London”
by Mr. Michael Davies

  “A Letter to London”
by Atila S. Guimarães

  “A Letter from London”
by Mr. Michael Davies

   Why Not Deal With Dominus Jesus?
by A. S. Guimarães

“The ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church” (17b).

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection .... of Churches and ecclesiastical communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only a goal which all .... must strive to reach. In fact, the elements of this Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities. Therefore, these .... Churches and communities as such .... have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (17c).

QUICK LINKS:

Polemic Articles  |  Polemics Main Page  |  TIA Home Page  |  Books  |  Audio Cassettes

 


 Something Borrowed, Nothing New

Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Published in The Remnant October 31, 2001


The recent declaration Dominus Jesus issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last September 5 has been the object of much misinterpretation. The mass media made a strong effort to insist that the document signified a return to the pre-Vatican II “dark ages” and the “archaic” doctrine Extra Ecclesia nulla salus [No salvation outside the Catholic Church]. Present-day ecumenism would be condemned; the unicity of the Catholic Church would be reaffirmed; all the post-conciliar advances achieved by 40 years of efforts moving toward a new Universal Religion would be lost, and so on...

Some conservatives who follow the school of "blind obedience" to everything that issues from the Vatican took their place in the applauding bandwagon. And, following their general pattern, their enthusiasm for the document is translated into an attempt to excommunicate whoever will not agree with their “infallible” interpretation. In this article I would like to present some evidence that speaks in the exact opposite sense of the bandwagon.

For not everyone is reading Dominus Jesus according to this diktat of the media. In a letter dated September 10 sent to the Boston Globe, Kent R. Hill, President of the Eastern Nazarene College and a Protestant participant in the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” project, noted that when he saw the press reports, he was very worried. However, after a careful reading of the document, he realized that there was no basis to such exaggerated claims in the secular press which had asserted that John Paul II had somehow “allegedly abandoned his earlier ecumenism and is moving the Catholic Church back towards ‘pre-Vatican II triumphalism.’”

Au contraire, he exclaims with that particular post-Vatican II brand of triumphalism, “the quotations actually contend that even we Protestants who ‘have not preserved the valid Episcopate,’ but have been baptized, are ‘incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.’”

“This position,” he sighs with relief, “is completely faithful with the ecumenism of Vatican II, and is seen as a gesture of good will by most Protestants who appreciate the affirmation that the grace of God extends beyond the membership of the Catholic Church. He continues, "In addition, the full document insists that there are true elements in the sacred writings of other religions, which have enabled people both in the past and the present to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God.”

Fr. Richard McBrien is one who can always be counted on to decry and censure any return to tradition and “the pre-Vatican II era when the Catholic Church claimed without qualification to be ‘the one, true Church’ and when the salvation of non-Christians was regarded as chancy at best.” Perhaps it will be surprising to some that Fr. McBrien was benevolent – although not enthusiastic – with regard to Dominus Jesus. In brief, he said, when you read it in context, “the document could conceivably have been written on the day after the Second Vatican Council adjourned in December 1965.”

While the document could have been more positive in tone, he asserts with a certain irony, it nonetheless does not limit “faith” to Christians. And it is possible “for a Christian to have faith in Jesus as the Son of God and as the Redeemer of all humankind and at the same time to affirm that the love and saving will of God extends to all the peoples of the world. The Second Vatican Council was not alone in saying so. When one actually reads the text, so does Dominus Jesus.” (“The Vatican and non-Christians,” The Tidings, Los Angeles, Sept. 29, 2000, p. 11)

In one of his latest columns, author George Weigel also thought it appropriate to “clear the air” after the “obtuse reporting” that accompanied the release of this Vatican statement. Who better than convert Father Neuhaus, who has forty years of ecumenical activism under his belt, to set us straight? he asks. Fr. Neuhaus firmly denies that Dominus Jesus was a major ‘setback’ to Christian unity and a reassertion of the ‘pre-Vatican II teaching’ that only Catholics can be saved. He, along with Southern Baptist theologian Dr. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Theological Seminary, has correctly read Dominus Jesus as “a ringing affirmation of the uniqueness… and universality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

And as for ecumenism, Fr. Neuhaus states, “The declaration says that since there is only one Christ, there can be, in the deepest sense of the term, only one Church, which is the Body of Christ. It reiterates the language of Vatican II that the one Church of Jesus Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church.” (George Weigel, “Clearing the air after Dominus Jesus,” The Tidings, LA, October 6, 2000, p. 11)

Post-Vatican II ecumenism is alive and well, and inter-religious dialogue can proceed as normal. Which is exactly what Baltimore’s Cardinal William Keeler, who was present at the September 5 Vatican news conference, told reporters afterward: that he felt the document posed no obstacle to inter-religious dialogue. (“Exclusive Claim,” National Catholic Reporter, Sept. 15, 2000, p. 7)

In fact, two days after the release, Pope John Paul II welcomed the new ambassador from Egypt, reiterating his wishes “for a new era of religious and cultural dialogue between Islam and Christianity.”

In his address, which emphasized how religious differences are “enriching,” the Pope said that believers “who worship the one God, who look to Abraham as a Holy Patriarch and who seek to follow the Law of Sinai” should try to find “the things we have in common.” There was certainly no indication of any change of direction in the ecumenical route charted and embarked on so decidedly by John Paul II.

New interpretations of the document began to circulate with insinuations that there could be a difference of opinion between the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger. That these media theatrics were unfounded became clear early this month. John Paul II firmly closed the door on such speculations with the words he spoke before reciting the Angelus on October 1. After a Mass celebrated for the canonization of yet another 123 Saints, the Pontiff pointed out that he is entirely supportive of the document.

According to him, the declaration does no more than follow Vatican Council II, which does not deny salvation to non-Christians, “but explains its ultimate source in Christ.” He defended Dominus Jesus as a document that reaffirms the Vatican II teaching that “the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. …

Thus the document expresses once again the same ecumenical passion that is at the basis of my encyclical Ut Unum Sint. It is my hope that, after so many mistaken interpretations, this heartfelt declaration will finally be able to achieve its clarifying function, as well as that of openness.” (Pope’s Words before the Angelus, October 1, Zenit Internet Dispatch)

Thus, so that there be no confusion, the Pope himself asserted that the document establishes a clear distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. Borrowing the thesis and words from Lumen Gentium (8b), it thus affirms that the Church of Christ would be broader than the Catholic Church, which would subsist in her, without being confused with her. This distinction clashes with the perennial doctrine of the Catholic Magisterium as demonstrated by Atila Sinke Guimarães (see In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Chap. 1), and recently reaffirmed in his article “A Conversion?” (The Remnant, September 30, 2000).

Finally, in a lengthy interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in early October, Cardinal Ratzinger himself has asserted that the media who criticized and the "blind" conservatives who applauded either have not understood the document's meaning or have not read it. Ratzinger explained that Dominus Jesus did not use the expression of Pius XII, according to which the "The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ," even though this has been the constant dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church up until Vatican II.

Instead, he said, the document preferred the expression "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him." This is because it wanted to affirm "that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church." This frontally conflicts with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church up until Vatican II.

For all the brouhaha and fuss raised about how the recent Vatican document is a new Unam Sanctam or Syllabus, how it firmly reasserts the old teaching “No salvation outside the Church,” there is, in fact, really nothing new. The “blind obedience” school of conservatives feel vindicated, but, as frequently happens, they are not seeing very well. Ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, such as the upcoming Catholic-Buddhist dialogues planned here in the Los Angeles Archdiocese as part of the ‘Jubilee 2000’ program, move forward and steadily onward.

And the Conciliar Revolution remains right on course.




QUICK LINKS:

Polemic Articles  |  Polemics Main Page  |  TIA Home Page  |  Books  |  Audio Cassettes



 


A Letter from London

Michael Davies
Published in The Remnant May 31, 2001


I have had several letters asking when the explanation of Dominus Jesus (DJ) that I mentioned in my 15 December column will appear. As I mentioned in that column, its appearance is dependent upon my International Una Voce Federation responsibilities, which, at the moment, are very time-consuming, particularly in view of our forthcoming General Assembly in Rome in October. Even the task of booking rooms for delegates from twenty-six countries takes up a great deal of time, not to mention the correspondence involved with the applications from four more countries which have applied for membership. My Newman book occupies ten to twelve hours of every day; I have to go to Germany in May, guide the Remnant Pilgrims in England in June, and give four or five lectures at the Von Hildebrand Symposium in Italy in July. Preparing these lectures invariably takes up at least a month of my time. This year’s symposium will be particularly interesting, as we are dealing with Vatican II and its aftermath. What all this means is that with more than a little bit of luck I might just about be able to deal with DJ in August.

One of the principal insights that brought Newman into the Church was his realization that Our Lord would not have left His Church without some certain way of knowing what is true and what is not true when differences of opinion arise among the faithful. No such authority exists within the “broad Church” of Anglicanism. Anglicans are at present debating the possibility of ordaining homosexual men to the priesthood, and the question will be settled by a majority vote, as was the question of ordaining women. There is no authority to which an appeal can be made for a definitive answer. In the Catholic Church we have the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which has published about three dozen documents since Vatican II clarifying Catholic teaching on a range of topics, such as the “Ordination of Women,” “Procured Abortion,” “The Mystery of the Church,” “Homosexuality,” and “Infant Baptism.” I have read about a dozen of them, and as far as I could see, with my admittedly limited knowledge of theology, they are totally orthodox. It would be very alarming if anything coming from the CDF was not totally orthodox. If documents emanating from the CDF are to be subjected to the judgment of laymen, the we would be in the same position as Protestants. I find the very idea that a Declaration of the CDF approved by the Supreme Pontiff in forma specifica should be criticized by those claiming to be traditional Catholics to be completely incongruous. A traditional Catholic accepts the authoritative doctrinal teaching of the Holy See with an inner assent based on the high supernatural authority of that See, even though such documents are not infallible. It is a characteristic of Catholic liberals that they feel they have the right to call into question any teaching of the Holy See apart from ex cathedra pronouncements. It is, of course, legitimate to make a respectful request for a clarification of documents of the Holy See, as Chris Ferrara did, although he was somewhat unrealistic in putting forward sixty-four questions. Had he put forward six, or better still one or two, he might have received a response. It is an undeniable fact that the chance of letters to anyone in authority in Church or State receiving a reply diminish in proportion to their length

Although I will not be able to comment on Mr. Guimarães’ critique of DJ before August, I must express my profound disagreement with three items in his “Bird’s Eye View of the News” in the 31 March issue of The Remnant. The first concerns his criticism of Cardinal Ratzinger for stating that the Jewish faith “for us is not another religion but the foundation of our own faith.” Mr. Guimarães has not even provided us with a complete sentence, and so perhaps he would be kind enough to publish a longer extract from the report so that we can put these words into their correct context. If he is suggesting that His Eminence believes that the Catholic and Jewish religions are identical, I can only describe such a suggestion as ludicrous. I would also point out that there are no heresies in the Jewish creed (whatever that might be), as only baptized Christians can be heretics.

The Cardinal is perfectly correct in stating that the Jewish religion is the foundation of our own faith. The Old Covenant is the foundation of the New Covenant, the Mass developed from Jewish rituals, the major part of our Bible consists of the Jewish Scriptures, which are cited on countless occasions in the New Testament and in our Missal and in the Breviary.

Mr. Guimarães also claims that in DJ Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed that Catholics make up a single “Church of Christ”with Protestants and Schismatics. I can only conclude that there are two texts of the Declaration in circulation, as no such affirmation appears in the version that I have. Perhaps he would provide us with the passage in which this statement can be found. Such an affirmation would, of course, be blatantly heretical.

My third objection is his reference to the Orthodox Churches as Schismatic. They are, of course, schismatic, but, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been the usage of the Holy See, as a matter of courtesy, to refer to the Orthodox as schismatics for a century or more, In A Catholic Dictionary (TAN Books – available from The Remnant Bookstore) under the entry “Schismatic,” citing Jugie’s Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, p. 17, it states that the term can be applied only in an improper sense to those brought up in a schismatic church who are “not, in fact, a party to the sin of schism.” Heretics and schismatics brought up in their own religious communion who accept its teaching in good faith are only material heretics or schismatics, and therefore incur no guilt.

It is particularly reprehensible to term the Orthodox Churches as schismatic, in view of the fact that they are authentic particular Churches. A word of clarification may be necessary here: A particular Church is a diocese. Although one speaks of the American Church, the French Church, the Australian Church, one should, in fact, refer to the “Churches” in these countries, i.e., the dioceses within those countries. Diocesan Bishops are answerable to the Pope and not to their National Episcopal Conferences. Thus Archbishop Laisé of the Diocese of San Luis in Argentina asked Cardinal Ratzinger if he had the right to reject the practice of Communion in the hand in his own diocese, even though it had been approved by the Episcopal Conference of Argentina. His Eminence replied that, of course, this was his right.

The question then arises as to what is the status of an authentic particular Church, i.e., a diocese, if it rejects communion with the Pope, or if its bishop is excommunicated. The schism of Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was formalized in 1054 when he was object of a canonically dubious excommunication by legates of Pope Leo IX, who handled the situation very badly. Two of his prelates were excommunicated, but no other Eastern bishop was ever has been. The great Church of Constantinople itself was not, and never has been excommunicated. The answer to the question is that, providing that the Apostolic Succession, the Seven Sacraments, and acceptance of the Nicene Creed are preserved, these Churches remain authentic particular (though schismatic) Churches. When the schism of Photius (died 891) was healed, the separated Eastern churches (dioceses) were recognized as fully Catholic by Rome, together with their bishops. This was also the case with the reconciliations at the Council of Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1439. The separation of East and West has been definitive since 1472. If a reconciliation between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy ever takes place, the Eastern Churches will certainly be accepted as authentic particular Churches, with recognition of the bishops ruling them at the time.

An obvious distinction must be made between the Orthodox Churches and bodies such as the Church of England or the Lutheran Church, which have neither the Apostolic Succession nor the Seven Sacraments. This distinction is made admirably clear in DJ, where these bodies are denied the title “Churches,” but are termed “ecclesial communions.” The self-styled “Archbishop of Canterbury” was furious about this and considered DJ a serious setback in ecumenical relations, which I am pleased to say it is. Why the Vatican wastes time and money on a dialogue with the Anglicans since they introduced priestesses and bishopesses is a mystery to me. In making this distinction between the Orthodox Eastern Churches and the Protestant denominations, DJ is in the direct tradition of Pope Pius IX. When this great Pope convoked the First Vatican Council in 1868, he wrote “to all Bishops of the Churches of the Oriental Rite not in communion with the Apostolic See” (not to “the Eastern Schismatics”) and invited them to come to the Council in their capacity as bishops of authentic particular Churches:

“Since, with the advice of our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, we have recently announced and convoked an ecumenical synod, to be celebrated in Rome next year beginning on the eight day of December, dedicated to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, we again direct our voice to you. With still greater earnestness of heart, we implore, remind, and beseech you, so that you may wish to come to this general Synod, just as your predecessors assembled at the Second Council of Lyons, held by Blessed Gregory IX, our memorable predecessor, and at the Council of Florence, celebrated by Eugene IV, our predecessor of happy memory. As a result, with the revival of the former laws of harmony and with the restoration to vigor of the peace of patristic times, that heavenly and salutary gift of Christ which withered away in the course of time,[1] the serene radiance of the desired union may begin to shine on all after a long period of dark sorrow and the black, depressing gloom of longstanding discord.”[2]

[1] Letter 70 (220 in some editions) of St. Basil the Great to Pope Damasus (PG 32:434).
[2] Council of Florence, Decree of Union with the Greek Church, Laetentur caeli, July 6, 1439 (Mansi 31:1027).

His reference to the “predecessors” of these Eastern Bishops coming to the Councils of Lyons and Florence, convoked by his predecessors, cannot be interpreted as anything but an acceptance of the authenticity of their succession. The generous invitation to the Venerable Pius IX was, alas, rejected by the Orthodox. In most cases they have not responded to the warmth and courtesy of recent Popes in their efforts to achieve reunion. In many cases, they term us schismatics and refuse to recognize the validity of our sacraments. This does not justify Catholics behaving with the same lack of courtesy and charity. Before unity can be achieved, there are also number of doctrinal differences that would need to be solved. These are listed comprehensively in A Catholic Dictionary – entry “Orthodox Eastern Churches.” In the same dictionary, see also: “Orthodox, Cerularius, Photius.”

Before writing my analysis of Mr. Guimarães critique of DJ, I would like to ask him to state whether he accepts the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, or whether he agrees with the teaching of Father Feeney that there is “no salvation outside the Church.” If the latter, much of his criticism of DJ would be quite understandable.




QUICK LINKS:

Polemic Articles  |  Polemics Main Page  |  TIA Home Page  |  Books  |  Audio Cassettes



 


A Letter to London

Atila Sinke Guimarães
Published in The Remnant July 31, 2001


Some months ago, Mr. Michael Davies made an attack upon The Remnant columnists who had criticized the document Dominus Jesus and issued a challenge to engage in a “lively debate” on the topic. Since I was one of the collaborators of the newspaper who had written in this sense, I published a small note communicating to Mr. Davies that I would accept his invitation. He responded in an article (The Remnant May 31, 2001) that the debate would have to be further postponed. He explained to his readers the importance of the position he holds and his many commitments and affirmed that he would not have time to deal with the matter before August. I continue to await the promised polemic.

Despite his tight schedule, Mr. Davies nonetheless found time to criticize rather minutely my Bird’s Eye View column of March 31. It seems that he likes appetizers before the main course. In his critique, he made one insinuation and four attacks against me. I will respond to these here.


A Protestant attitude?

1. The insinuation. With regard to the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Mr. Davies explained to readers that this Dicastery had published some “three dozen” documents since the Council, although he had only read “about a dozen.” I cannot refrain from smiling at seeing my opponent counting Vatican documents like one who counts eggs. In the dozen that Mr. Davies read, he found them all “totally orthodox.” And he commented: “It would be very alarming if anything coming from the CDF was not totally orthodox. If documents emanating from the CDF are to be subjected to the judgment of laymen, then we would be in the same position as Protestants.” Thus, his insinuation is that I would be taking the same arrogant position of the Protestants in criticizing Dominus Jesus.

On October 31, 1999, Cardinal Edward Cassidy and Lutheran bishop Christian Krause signed the sadly famous Accord of Augsburg, in which the Catholic doctrine of the Council of Trent was, at the least, put in the shadows in order to please the Protestants. The text of the accord was approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to the declarations of Cassidy.[3] It was several Lutherans who stated that Ratzinger’s input in that text was absolutely crucial.[4] Now, according to Mr. Davies, if I would disagree with the Augsburg document, as I did, I would be taking a Protestant position.

[3] According to a Zenit dispatch of June 11, 1999, during a press conference in Geneva, “Cardinal Cassidy explained that the common statement and its annex have been approved by …. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose prefect is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Late this May, John Paul II also approved the signing of the Declaration to be carried out jointly with the Lutheran World Federation.”
[4] See John Allen Jr., “Ratzinger credited with saving Lutheran pact,” National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 1999; A. S. Guimarães, “The October Revolution,” The Remnant, November 15, 1999

Having presented these facts, I make my first reply to Mr. Davies. According to Mr. Davies, when the CDF puts aside the prior teaching of the Magisterium to approve the text of an accord with Protestants and if someone disagrees with this, then this person would be under suspicion for taking a Protestant position because he is trying to avoid favoring Protestantism. If someone agrees with the CDF initiative, according to the position advised by Mr. Davies of blind obedience to everything emanating from this Congregation, he would be obliged to favor Protestantism in order not to take a Protestant position. A little incoherent, isn’t it? I would be grateful if Mr. Davies could explain how a well-intentioned lay Catholic may act when the official authority favors either Protestantism or other errors or heresies.

Until he can clarify the matter, I will continue to follow the evangelical counsel: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them” (Math. 7:15-16). Also, the teaching of St. Thomas: “When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”[5] I do not see any Protestant tendency in obeying these counsels if the criticism is made for love of the Catholic Church and with due respect shown for the high position of the Prelates. If the Prelates would have the courage to stand up against the present day errors, the laity would normally remain silent. Since the former are silent, the latter see themselves obliged to try to fill this lacuna provisionally.

Allow me to comment briefly on Mr. Davies’ affirmation that the CDF documents are “totally orthodox.” In my book In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, I published an appendix on The Catholic Church and Homosexuality. There I cite three documents of the CDF on this topic and compare them with former Catholic doctrine.[6] I show how they cross over the moral boundaries that consider homosexuality a vice against nature and seem to give rein to this depravity in the Church. I would like to know if Mr. Davies would consider those documents “totally orthodox.”

[5] Summa theologiae II, II, q. 33, a. 4.
[6] (Metairie, LA: MAETA, 1997), pp. 370-8.

Are the Catholic and Jewish religions identical?

2. His first frontal attack concerns a phrase of Cardinal Ratzinger that I cited and commented upon in my column. This is the phrase: The Jewish faith “for us is not another religion, but the foundation of our own faith.” In his attack, Mr. Davies makes several minor charges as well: A. he asks that I cite “the correct context” of the phrase – a light insinuation that I deceived my readers. B. Further on, he comments: “If he [speaking of me] is suggesting that His Eminence believes that the Catholic and the Jewish religions are identical, I can only describe such a suggestion as ludicrous.” C. Then he affirms that because the Jewish religion does not have Baptism, it cannot contain heresies, as I wrote in my column. Finally, he expresses his enthusiastic support of Ratzinger’s statement and tries to demonstrate its veracity.

For the sake of clarity, I will respond to each part separately.

A. The context. I took Ratzinger’s quote from a CNS dispatch published by the well-informed L.A. weekly The Tidings (January 5, 2001). It stated the following: “The experience of the Holocaust horrors may have prompted a ‘new vision’ of Catholic reconciliation with Jews after centuries of anti-Judaism and ‘deplorable acts of violence,’ said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a front-page article in the Vatican’s newspaper of December 29. He said Catholic dialogue with Jews belonged to a unique category because the Jewish faith ‘for us is not another religion, but the foundation of our faith.’” The sentence I quote is the nucleus of the dispatch, the rest is ancillary. I have at hand the cited issue of the L’Osservatore Romano (daily Italian edition) and the resume, considering that it is a dispatch, is well done.

B. Ludicrous. Ratzinger’s affirmation is ambiguous because it permits several interpretations of what he really thinks about the similarity between Catholicism and Judaism. Nevertheless, two boundaries limit these interpretations. First, he was not talking only about past relations with the Jews, as Mr. Davies took it. Second, he was not saying that the two faiths are identical. Between these two limits the sentence can be interpreted however one would like, since Ratzinger made no further clarification. I understand the phrase in this way: the Jewish faith for us Catholics is not a different religion. I think that the Cardinal was trying to emphasize the similarity of the Progressivist conception of the Church (to which he adheres) and present-day Judaism. This reality falls into a broader context. According to innumerable serious authors, to establish a pan-religion is one of the objectives of Masonry and Judaism. By various means, conciliar Progressivism has been trying to achieve a similar goal.

What I maintain is that this is the orientation being followed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the present CDF, and various Vatican Dicasteries – for example, the Pontifical Councils for the Unity of Christians, for Inter-Religious Dialogue and for Non-Believers. If some Prelate or notable layman would like to discuss this matter further publicly, I am at his disposition. Mr. Davies is certainly included in this invitation.

My opponent caustically qualifies anyone who could suggest that Judaism and the Catholic Church are identical as “ludicrous.” I have just showed that I do not think this. However, I know several who went further than I did in this matter. For example, the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, is a convert from Judaism. Speaking of his conversion, he affirmed: “The decision to become Christian did not present itself as a denial, but as the affirmation of an assumed Jewish identity.”[7] On another occasion, he said: “My nomination and my presence in Paris place in sharp evidence the part of Judaism that Christianity carries in itself. It is as if suddenly the crucifix had begun to carry the yellow star.”[8]

[7] Jean-Marie Lustiger, interview with the Bulletin de L’Agence Télégraphique Juive, La Documentation Catholique, March 1, 1981, p. 239.
[8] J.M. Lustiger, interview with the Tribune Juive, Le Monde, September 5, 1981.

Here are two categorical statements of Lustiger defending an identity between the Catholic Church and present-day Judaism. How does Mr. Davies interpret these words of His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris? Would they be ludicrous? Would the Cardinal be subject to criticism? If this is the case, why not Cardinal Ratzinger as well? Or perhaps the thesis of Lustiger should be accepted without discussion in order to avoid acting like the Protestants? In this case, couldn’t Ratzinger’s phrase also be interpreted in the same light as Lustiger’s statements? I leave the matter open for Mr. Davies to respond.

C. Heresies in Judaism. My adversary affirms that one cannot speak of heresies when criticizing the Jewish errors, since heresy can only be applied properly to one who has received Baptism. I respond: Mr. Davies is right, but he simplifies the matter since he does not consider the different ways the truth can be applied. He does not take into account some important historical facts:

First, the fact that Judaism is the source of almost all the heresies, according to the words of St. Pius V: “We know that this most perverse people [which follow the Judaic religion] has always been the cause and fomenter of almost all the heresies.”[9] Therefore, in this sense, one can speak properly of the heresies contained in Judaism.

Second, various members of Judaism who converted to the Holy Church and then later returned to the Jewish religious practices were guilty of “blasphemies that in themselves are considered heretical,” according to the words of Pope Gregory XIII.[10]

Third, it is a common practice of Judaism to infiltrate the Catholic Church with their partisans who ask to be baptized so that they can stimulate from within the creation of a creed similar to their religion. The 17th Council of Toledo (694) [11] and the 4th Ecumenical Lateran Council (1215) [12] condemned respectively a conspiracy to install Judaism within the Catholic Church and the converted Jews who practice the rites of the Jewish religion. Such actions can also legitimately be considered heretical.

[9] St. Pius V, Bull Hebraeorum gens, February 26, 1569; Ludwig Pastor, Historia de los Papas, vol. 17, p. 306.
[10] Bull Antiqua Judaeorum improbitas, June 1, 1581; F. Vernet, entry Juifs et Chrétiens, Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, col. 1737.
[11] René Aigrain, “L’Église franque sous les Mérovingiens,” Histoire de l’Église (Fliche-Martin), vol. 5, p. 259.
[12] Canon 70, Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta (Herder: Freiburg im Bresgau, 1962), pp. 241-243.

D. Davies’ defense of the Cardinal. Ratzinger’s phrase has two parts. As I noted above, he said that the Jewish faith “for us is not another religion, but the foundation of our faith.” The first part is the point of interest: that is, how does one explain that the Cardinal charged with guarding the orthodoxy of the Catholic Faith can affirm that Judaism “is not another religion,” that is to say, is not different in relation to Catholicism? Mr. Davies attempts to justify the second part of the phrase, which no one put in doubt. As for the first part, he does not address the problem.

Therefore, Mr. Davies missed the mark. What he justifies is the fact that Catholicism proceeded from the Old Testament. He does not explain how this can be applied to present-day Judaism in order to justify the first part of Ratzinger’s statement. This first part is quite strange since between the birth of the Church and our times, many events have taken place that have changed Jewish-Catholic relations. I cite only two: the Deicide and the anti-Christian conspiracy. Judaism fomented both events, as Church Tradition and the best anti-liberal and anti-modernist authors teach. Such authors to a certain degree are the fathers of the present day conservative and traditionalist movement. Now, Mr. Davies’ emphasis on his adherence to the first part of the phrase seems to signify that he does not believe in the multi-century combat of Judaism against the Catholic Church. Hence, some questions arise: What is the true position of Mr. Davies in relation to the anti-Christian conspiracy? Does he believe that Judaism and Masonry have been plotting for ages to destroy Christendom and the Holy Church?

These are not academic questions. They are issues of great interest to Catholic conservatives and traditionalists. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Davies can assume positions of leadership in these movements when he seems to deny the presuppositions that all have. Perhaps he could clarify the matter.


A request to reveal other sources?

2. The second objection seems to be only a trick. He wants to know what edition of Dominus Jesus I use when I affirm that the “Church of Christ” includes Schismatics and Protestants. Does he doubt the truth of my critique? Or does he want me to reveal to him what documents I have for the debate that he is supposed to take up later? Thus, he could decide whether it would be better to drop the matter or carry on the polemic. I don’t know his intention. The documents and sources that he requests I will give in the response to his critique, not now.

Allow me to make a parallel remark. The tactic Mr. Davies employs is curious. Early in his article, he affirmed that he would not be able to comment on my critique of Dominus Jesus before August. However, in his first insinuation against me and in two of his four attacks, the theme is my opinion on Dominus Jesus. Why does he say one thing and do another?


Appropriate title for Schismatic Churches

3. His third objection refers to my habit of designating the so-called Orthodox Church as Schismatic Church. Mr. Davies does not deny it is schismatic, but he considers it “particularly reprehensible” to give it this name. In order to prove that the Schismatic Church should be called the Orthodox Church, Mr. Davies strives to show that it deserves the title of “church.” Although I do not agree with some historical arguments that he presents, I think that the discussion does not apply to my case, because I do not deny that it deserves the title of church; what I deny is that it is orthodox. Thus his argumentation, even if it were historically objective, would not be conclusive. To be conclusive he should have proved that it deserves the title of orthodox. For the second time, he missed the mark. I think it would be sufficient to end my response to his objection here. However, in consideration for my readers, I will explain further.

He states: “It has not been the usage of the Holy See, as a matter of courtesy, to refer to the Orthodox as Schismatics for a century or more.” I realize that in diplomatic relations with the Schismatics the Holy See may not use this name, but can employ lighter terms such as “dissidents,” “those who are not in communion with the Catholic Church,” etc. Notwithstanding, when the Church turns to her children to teach the truth, the language can be different. In my case, I am just a layman and not a member of the Holy See, and I am not speaking to Schismatics, but to Catholics who are subject to the temptations of ecumenism. Therefore, my obligation is to be truthful with these Catholics, not to be courteous to the Schismatics. I do not see anything “particularly reprehensible” in this conduct.

I follow the norms of the ordinary teaching of the Church that were in use before Vatican II. I learned these norms from religion classes and good catechisms. I am a Brazilian with 55 years of age, and I remember well many of the teachings in the Marist Brothers School where I studied from 1957 to 1962, that is to say, in the years that immediately preceded Vatican Council II. Among such teachings were these, summarized in my own words: The norm of the Catholic Church in relation to the religious confessions that proceeded from the Eastern Schism is to call them Schismatics or one should say the “so-called Orthodox Church,” the “self-named Orthodox Church.” Or, when writing, one can use “Orthodox” Church, placing the word between quotations. But one should not call them Orthodox, because the name signifies the church that has the true faith. And only the Catholic Church has the true Faith. For this reason, the only true Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church.

The Catechism Explained, by Fr. Francis Spirago, one of the most accepted catechisms before Vatican II, says: “The followers of Michael Cerularius call themselves the Orthodox Greeks, while we call them Schismatic Greeks, in opposition to the United Greeks or Uniates, who preserved their allegiance to Rome.”[13]

The Christian Apologetic Course, by Fr. W. Devivier, one of the most eulogized books of Catholic formation, says this: “The Greek Church is a schismatic church, though its denial of Papal Infallibility constitutes it, since Vatican Council I, as heretical as well.”[14]

[13] Ninth Article of the Creed, 4, 5.
[14] W. Devivier, Curso de Apologética Christã, São Paulo: Melhoramentos: 1925, p. 99.

I heard these wise norms applied many times in Sunday sermons, in the Catholic media, and in private counsels. It seems absurd to suppose that these norms were applied without the approval of the Holy See. Thus the affirmation that the Church has not used the expression “for a century or more” does not correspond to reality. Only after Vatican II did these norms disappear in order to favor ecumenism. Therefore, Mr. Davies is exaggerating in his affirmation that the norms have not been in usage for a century or more. They stopped being applied around 40 years ago. His indignation at my obedience to traditional norms seems to reveal that he also sympathizes emotionally with the new norms of Vatican II.


No salvation outside the Church

4. His fourth objection is this: “I would like to ask Mr. Guimarães to state whether he accepts the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, or whether he agrees with the teaching of Father Feeney that there is ‘no salvation outside the Church.’ If the latter, much of his criticism of DI would be understandable.”

I am not a member of the St. Benedict Center and have no special link with this institution. I do not know their teaching about Baptism of desire. I have heard many negative rumors about this doctrine. However, I am not a man who takes rumors seriously or gets involved in intrigues. This type of action is generally employed by superficial women or pusillanimous men who are afraid to say directly what they think. Because of the natural aversion I have toward this behavior, and seeing that the St. Benedict Center is the target of such rumors, I have sympathy for it, without ever having set foot there or had the pleasure of a personal contact with its directors. Some time ago I read a book about the life of Fr. Feeney and found it edifying. I approved of his strong Marian devotion. I liked his dogged opposition to the nascent ecumenism. I admired his fidelity to Catholic tradition.

Without having made special studies on the matter, my personal position with respect to Baptism of desire is, I believe, the same as that of Holy Church. Should it not be, I will willingly renounce it. Baptism of desire can exist as an exception to the rule. The rule is that in order to be saved it is necessary to be baptized sacramentally in the Catholic Church. To the measure that this exception is too readily assumed or transformed into the rule, a sophism is established. It was upon this sophism that the Progressivists based themselves to introduce the notion of belonging “anonymously” to the Catholic Church, which would make its circle much wider than her visible limits.

It surprises me that Mr. Davies attributes the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church to the teaching of Fr. Feeney. One would have to be very unknowledgeable in doctrine not to know that this axiom was always defended by the Holy Church and that whoever professes the Catholic Faith has the duty to accept it. Perhaps Mr. Davies was too impressed by the rumors and forgot the position of the Church in this respect.

To stir his memory, I suggest that among other things, he read the following documents that clearly state this dogma: 16^th Council of Toledo, Symbolum, May 2, 693 (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 575), 4^th Lateran Council, November 30, 1215 (DS 802), Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302 (DS 870), 16^th Council of Constance, decree confirmed by Pope Martin V, February 22, 1418 (DS 1191), Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, November 4, 1442 (DS 1351), Pius IX, Syllabus (DS 2917), Apostolic letter Iam vos omnes, September 13, 1868 (DS 2997-2999), Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896 (DS 3304), Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943 (DS 3821-3822).

Having refuted the objections of Mr. Davies, I await his next attack. I sincerely hope that amid his many occupations he will find more time to think about what he will write.



QUICK LINKS:

Polemic Articles  |  Polemics Main Page  |  TIA Home Page  |  Books  |  Audio Cassettes



 


A Letter From London

Michael Davies
Published in The Remnant September 15, 2001



In the 31 July issue Mr. Guimarães informs us that he has refuted a number of criticisms that I made of his article published in the 31 May issue. The meaning of “refute” is to prove a person to be in error or an opinion to be false or erroneous. He has not done so in a single instance. Before refuting the arguments contained in his response I must point out that he is wrong in claiming that I explained to readers the importance of the position I hold, or that I have assumed leadership positions. I have never considered myself to be a person of any importance, and the only leadership position (in the singular) that I hold is that of President of the International Una Voce Federation, which, in fact, is not a position of leadership but that of a full-time unpaid secretary. My “leadership” at present consists principally of booking rooms for delegates to our forthcoming General Assembly in Rome.

Mr. Guimarães states that my article contained one in insinuation and four attacks against him. Pointing out to someone that they are in error does not constitute a personal attack. I am always very grateful when someone brings errors that I have made to my attention. In my recent book, The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue I mentioned (pages 37-38) how the members of Father Fortescue’s small parish increased dramatically with the influx of Irishmen whose families had been in the service of the Crown prior to the proclamation of the Republic in 1922. Their lives would not have been safe had they remained in Ireland. It was pointed out to me that until 1 January 1949 the King continued to be Ireland’s Head of State with a Governor General in Dublin. I did not consider this correction to be in any way an “attack” upon me, and I shall correct my error in subsequent editions of the book. Mr. Guimarães does not have the least hesitation in criticizing the Pope or Cardinal Ratzinger for what he considers to be their errors, and he should not be so hypersensitive when attention is drawn to his own mistakes.

And now for what Mr. Guimarães refers to as the “insinuation” and “four attacks”.


1. The Insinuation.

As regards “the insinuation”, I stated that it would be alarming if anything coming from the CDF was not totally orthodox as we would then be in the same position as Protestants and have no certain way of know what is true and what is false. The Pope is not going to make an infallible pronouncement on all the doctrinal or moral problems that present themselves as the years pass. The consensus of theologians is that the only two pronouncements that are certainly ex cathedra are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. When, however, the Pope makes an authoritative pronouncement on a matter of faith or morals we can be morally certain that he is correct. The same can be said of pronouncement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Take, for example, the question of in vitro fertilization. Despite the anguish of couples who are unable to have a child in the normal manner the CDF tells us that under no circumstances can the process be resorted to by Catholics. The matter is settled for us, which is not the case with Protestants who have no such authority to settle the matter for them. If this and similar decisions of the CDF can be called into question by laymen then we are in the same position as Protestants. When the CDF issues a document it may not say all that needs to be said on the subject in question, it may not say what it says as clearly as could be the case, but we can be morally certain that it contains no doctrinal error. I am sure that Mr. Guimarães cannot cite a single doctrinal error in any pronouncement by the CDF. He refers to the Accord of Augsburg. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a CDF document and the approval of the CDF merely guarantees that it contains no heresy, no denial of de fide teaching. Is there such a denial in the Augsburg accord? If my memory serves me rightly, it was denounced by one Lutheran Synod as a surrender to Catholicism.

Mr. Guimarães cites three documents on homosexuality issued by the CDF on the question of homosexuality to justify his claim that the documents of the Congregation are not always totally orthodox. He alleges that they “cross over the moral boundaries that consider homosexuality a vice against nature and seem to give free rein to this depravity in the Church.” I consider this claim to be as distasteful as it is ridiculous. To state that the Magisterium of the Immaculate Bride of Christ could publish documents giving free rein to depravity in the Church displays complete ignorance of the nature of the Church Christ founded, and brings the traditionalist movement into disrepute. My impression of this section of his book is that he has started with a conclusion and extracted a few passages from their context to justify it.

The only document of the three one that I have in my files is the 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. A distinction must be made here between the teaching of the Church concerning homosexual acts and the pastoral care of those who are tempted to commit or actually commit those acts. In the latter case one could argue that the policy suggested might be too tolerant, but if the teaching of the Church is clear the orthodoxy of the document would not be in question. In the Letter to the Bishops it is stated that:

“The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and life-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”

This seems a clear statement of the Catholic position to me. Is this teaching contradicted or even omitted in any of the documents that Mr. Guimarães cites? I doubt it. Having read what he has to say in his book concerning the document that I have cited my reaction is that he has by the use of a few quotations torn from their context totally distorted its clear message that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and that no pastoral measures can ever be undertaken which give the impression that they are not. I will cite just one more passage:

“All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teachings of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous. In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.”

Neither of these passages appear in Mr. Guimarães' book. Under no circumstances will I get into a debate on homosexuality with him. It will take up enough of my time to deal with his misrepresentation of Dominus Jesus. I would urge readers to obtain a copy of the 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, and decide for themselves. I am sure that those who do so will agree with me that by no possible stretch of the imagination can it be seen as giving free rein to depravity in the Church.


2. Are the Catholic and Jewish religions identical?

In his 31 May article Mr. Guimarães assures us that Cardinal Ratzinger alleges that the Jewish creed does not differ from the tenets of Catholic doctrine. He bases this absurd allegation on part of a sentence that he read in a secular newspaper, allegedly quoting l’Osservatore Romano. If he would provide us with the entire paragraph in Italian from the Vatican paper I would comment further, but without this I will waste no more time discussing this ridiculous and insulting allegation.

Mr. Guimaraes cites statements allegedly made by Cardinal Lustiger of Paris. What Cardinal Lustiger says is completely irrelevant to the charge he made against Cardinal Ratzinger and so I shall ignore it. He asks why, if Cardinal Lustiger can be criticized why cannot Cardinal Ratzinger be criticized? Anyone with even the most elementary knowledge of Catholic doctrine will know that pronouncements made by individual diocesan bishops such as Lustiger, Bernardin, or Weakland do not represent the Magisterium. Statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are Magisterial statements. Just as is the case with the Pope, when speaking in his capacity as a private theologian Cardinal Ratzinger could err.


3. Heresies in Judaism.

I explained to Mr. Guimarães that he was wrong in referring to the multiple heresies of the Jewish creed (whatever that might be) since only baptized Christian can be heretics. He responded that I am right – hardly a refutation – but then brought up the topic of alleged Jewish infiltration into the Church, and wanted to know whether I believe that “Judaism and Masonry have been plotting for ages to destroy Christendom and the Holy Church.” This has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I raised. I stated that Jews cannot be heretics, a fact that he accepts, and so I am right and he is wrong – end of discussion. I hope that if we reach the point of discussing Dominus Jesus Mr. Guimaraes will stick to the points at issue and not depart on irrelevant tangents.


4. Schismatic Churches.

The next point that I will deal with is what Mr. Guimarães describes as “The appropriate title for schismatic Churches.” I pointed out to him that to the best of my knowledge it has not been the usage of the Holy See to refer to the orthodox as schismatics for a century or more, and that the Venerable Pius IX invited the Orthodox Bishops to takes there places at the First Vatican Council. As he cited no papal texts designating the Orthodox as schismatic I presume that he accepts that, once again, I am correct. He states that as he is just a layman and not a member of the Holy See his obligation is to be truthful to his Catholic readers and not to be courteous with the schismatics. In referring to them as schismatics, he informs us, he is remain faithful to the teaching that he received at his high school in Brazil, and statements that he has found in certain theological textbooks. “Thus,” he continues, “the affirmation that the Church has not used the expression ‘for a century or more’ does not correspond with reality. Only after Vatican II did these norms disappear, in order to favor ecumenism. Therefore, Mr. Davies is exaggerating in his affirmation that the norms have not been is usage for a century or more. They stopped being applied around forty years ago. His indignation at my obedience to traditional norms seems to reveal that he also sympathizes emotionally with the new norms of Vatican II.”

My critique of Mr. Guimarães was far from emotional and did not express indignation. Being British, I endeavor never to be emotional or indignant about anything but sport. Nor did I state that: “The Church has not used the expression (schismatic) for a century or more.” I stated that it has not been the usage of the Holy See to refer to the Orthodox as schismatics for a century or more. Members of the Church, such as the theologians he cited, may use the expression “schismatic”, but individual theologians cannot be described as “the Church”. I am afraid that, being objective and not emotional, I must describe the claim of Mr. Guimarães that the term “schismatic” stopped being applied around forty years ago as nonsensical. In my response to him I cited A Catholic Dictionary (TAN Books - available from The Remnant Bookstore), which, under the entry “Schismatic”, states that the term can be applied only in an improper sense to those brought up in a schismatic church who are not, in fact, a party to the sin of schism”. This dictionary was first published in 1931, not quite within the last forty years. Father Adrian Fortescue is among the greatest authorities in the English-speaking world on the Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Uniate). In his article “Orthodox Church” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, he points out that the term “Orthodox” was used long before the schism of Photius not in opposition to the West but as the antithesis of the Eastern heretics—Nestorian and Monophysites. In his book The Orthodox Eastern Church, first published in 1907 (and thus prior to the past forty years) he writes:

“The other point is the use of the word Orthodox. Since the schism I have called the people in union with the Ecumenical Patriarch so. Of course the name then has a special and technical meaning. Orthodox in its real sense is just what we believe them not to be. But, in the first place, it seems impossible to find any other name. Eastern is too wide, the Copts and Armenians form Eastern Churches. Schismatic involves the same difficulty, besides being needlessly offensive. We do not in ordinary conversation speak of Protestants as heretics. The name, commonly in use, Greek, is the worst of all. The only body that ever calls itself, or can with any sort of reason be called the Greek Church , is the Established Church of the Kingdom of Greece; and that is only one, and a very small one, of the sixteen bodies that make up this great communion...And then courteous and reasonable people generally call any religious body by the name it calls itself. We have no difficulty in speaking of Evangelicals in Germany, the Church of England at home, and the Salvation Army everywhere.”

One might note, en passant, that both the authors cited by Mr. Guimaraes use the erroneous term “Greeks” in reference to the Orthodox. Father Spirago informs us that: “The followers of Michael Cerularius call themselves the Orthodox Greeks...” They most certainly do not. This will be my last word on the subject which concerns a matter of usage and not doctrine. As a courteous and reasonable person I will refer to the Orthodox Eastern Churches by the name they give themselves. If Mr. Guimarães chooses to do otherwise that is his prerogative. Needless to say, as I made clear in my original reply, I consider them to be schismatic.


5. Father Feeney

As regards the question of "No salvation outside the Church," I can assure Mr. Guimarães that I am aware of the fact that this is the teaching of the Church and was not invented by Father Feeney. I have been studying the dogma since 1979 after I read the celebrated article “The Boston Heresy Case” in Hamish Fraser’s Approaches No. 64 of Easter 1979 which I would like to see reprinted. Hamish paid tribute to the zeal and erudition of Father Feeney, sentiments with which I certainly concur, and makes it clear that the question of “The Dogma”, as it has come to be called, was simply an excuse to come down on Father Feeney for rocking Boston’s ecumenical boat. Unlike Mr. Guimaraes I have met members of the St. Benedict Center, including Brother Francis, whose erudition I also admire.

In my response to Mr. Guimarães I referred specifically to “the teaching of Father Feeney on no salvation outside the Church”, i.e. that it is literally true that only baptized Christians who die in Communion with the Holy See can be saved. Mr. Guimaraes tells us that there can be exception to this rule and therefore he does not accept the teaching of Father Feeney. He would, presumably, agree with me that Jews who are convinced that the old covenant still prevails and are perfectly sincere and conscientious in their observance of the Jewish law can be saved.

I will include by stating that I do not deny the presuppositions that Catholic conservatives and traditionalists hold. I do have the least doubt that the opinions that I express represent those of mainstream traditionalist Catholics.




QUICK LINKS:

Polemic Articles  |  Polemics Main Page  |  TIA Home Page  |  Books  |  Audio Cassettes



 


Why Not Deal With Dominus Jesus?

Atila Sinke Guimarães
Published in The Remnant September 15, 2001


Why have I taken so long to respond to the attacks of Mr. Michael Davies (The Remnant, September 15, 2001)? Because he was chosen to make a homage to Mr. Walter Matt, founder of The Remnant, at the conference that took place at the end of October. As I also was at that conference, an immediate response published right before the event could have shifted attention and prejudiced the planned homage. After the conference, I decided to say nothing until the publication of Mr. Davies’ speech, and the newspaper’s thank you. My wait is a small tribute that I have the pleasure of paying to Walter Matt, one of the great Catholic warriors of our days. This delay, however, obliges the reader to go back some issues to reacquaint themselves with the topics Mr. Davies and I were discussing.[15] The inconvenience has a simple solution. All the pieces of this polemic shortly can be found on the Tradition In Action website (www.TraditionInAction.org).

[15] For the reader who is not familiar with computers, here is the list of The Remnant’s articles of my polemic with Davies: September 30, 2000, A Conversion? by ASG – analysis on Dominus Jesus; December 31, 2000, A Christmas Letter from London by MD; January 31, 2001, Mr. Davies’ Challenge Accepted by ASG; March 31, 2001, Bird’s Eye View of the News by ASG; May 31, 2001, A Letter from London by MD; July 31, 2001, A Letter to London by ASG; September 15, 2001, A Letter from London by MD.

The controversy initiated by Mr. Davies took a curious deviation from his initial stated aim (The Remnant, December 31, 2000). His objective was to criticize my critique of Dominus Jesus. Instead of doing this, he launched miscellaneous attacks at me and never carried out his first objective. On December 31, 2001, one year after his initial announcement, he made another saying that he would further delay the debate. If he does not want to deal with the document, what is the purpose of these attacks? To defend that the Jews are saved in their own religion? To discuss whether it can be said that there are heresies in Judaism, or that Judaism is the source of all the heresies but is not, however, heretical? To criticize me because I call the Schismatics by that name and not by “orthodox” as he desires? Frankly, there are more urgent themes to address for the defense of the Holy Church. I do not see why Mr. Davies crossed my path to pose his abstract and semantic questions.

The fact is that he turned his fire on me, and I am obliged to defend myself.


Disappointment

It is a disappointment for me that, in order to respond, I have to go against a man who in times past defended the Catholic cause well. The Davies who was courageous against Vatican II, against the liturgical reform, and various other aspects of the progressivist advance has become a figure of the past. Today he defends the defenders of Vatican II, and he likes to boast that he is president of Una Voce, an association whose official purposes are not very clear regarding the acceptation of Vatican II's liturgical reform.
Important symptoms, however, lead one to think that the heads of the movement have compromised with the New Mass without the acknowledgement of the healthy grassroots. For example, in a recent public answer of Mr. Davies to a question at The Remnant Forum, he said that the association supports the Novus Ordo Mass.


Lack of intellectual honesty

Another disappointment was for me to realize that he did not employ intellectual honesty in the debate that he began. He uses various ruses to try to fool the reader. I will analyze here some of these tactics in his last attack.

1. Incessant request for other sources

In one of my columns I examined this phrase of Ratzinger: the Jewish faith “for us is not another religion, but the foundation of our own faith.” Davies asked me to show the context of the phrase. I transcribed the whole context from a Catholic News Service (CNS) article published in The Tidings, the Los Angeles archdiocesan newspaper. Both sources are serious and enjoy credibility in the United States. L’Osservatore Romano, in the issue I had at hand, confirmed the report. Based on these documents, I explained my position with regard to Ratzinger’s phrase.

Davies, however, returned to make the same accusations without taking into any consideration what I wrote. He said: “In his 31 May article [actually, I wrote the column March 31, and my answer to Davies was published July 31 - ASG], Mr. Guimarães assures us that Cardinal Ratzinger alleges that the Jewish creed does not differ from the tenets of Catholic doctrine. He bases this absurd allegation on part of a sentence that he read in a secular newspaper, allegedly quoting L’Osservatore Romano. If he would provide us with the entire paragraph in Italian from the Vatican paper, I would comment further, but without this I will waste no more time discussing this ridiculous and insulting allegation.”

Mr. Davies committed various errors in this curt appraisal. A. He did not read, or did not judge it convenient to admit the details I had already explained about the Cardinal’s statement. B. He ignored that I had attended to his former request to cite the context. C. He disregarded the fact that CNS and The Tidings are well-known Catholic organs, not secular. D. He once again requested that I cite a new paragraph, now from L’Osservatore Romano and in Italian…

Since Mr. Davies ignored my first attendance to his request, he cannot be taken seriously in his second. Further, he lost his good sense by asking me to copy in The Remnant a long paragraph in Italian from the L’Osservatore Romano for his exclusive benefit. If he is interested in knowing what L’Osservatore wrote, that is his problem. There are innumerable London libraries that carry the newspaper.

His repeated request that I present new sources is a dishonest ploy in order to delay a response and to avoid acknowledging his weakness in the discussion.

Adulterating the Opponent’s Argument

Another vice that appears in his article is his deliberate adulteration of what I wrote.

A – Omission of two Popes and two Councils that oppose his thesis

He accused me of error when I affirmed that there are heresies in Judaism. The reasoning of Davies is elementary: Only one who is baptized can be a heretic; now, the Jews are not baptized, therefore, there are not heresies in Judaism. This legitimate reasoning is nuanced in its application, as I showed in my last answer. St. Pius V taught that Judaism “has been the cause and the fomenter of all the heresies;” Pope Gregory XIII affirmed that the Jewish practices were guilty of “blasphemies that in themselves are considered heretical.” I cited one other important nuance in application, the infiltration of the Jews into the Catholic Church – which was condemned by two Councils. The falsely converted Jews can be considered heretics. Therefore, his initial reasoning suffers important alterations in its application, and two Popes consider that there are heresies in Judaism. Thus, by holding the same position, I am in good company.

In his attack, Mr. Davies left out these statements of the two Popes and these condemnations of the two Councils. He wrote: “I explained to Mr. Guimarães that he was wrong in referring to the multiple heresies of the Jewish creed (whatever that might be), since only baptized Christians can be heretics. He responded that I am right – hardly a refutation – but then brought up the topic of alleged Jewish infiltration into the Church …. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I raised. I stated that Jews cannot be heretics, a fact that he accepts, and so I am right and he is wrong – end of discussion.”

Mr. Davies deliberately left out what would have gone against his argument in order to reach his vibrant conclusion. Yet another dishonest way of acting with the aim of hiding his weakness.

B – The omission of two CDF documents and my two premises on the topic of homosexuality

Mr. Davies defied me to point to one single document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) that had any error, because he thinks that the present day CDF is almost infallible: “When the CDF issues a document …. we can be morally certain that it contains no doctrinal error.”

I understand his psychological need. As a convert from Anglicanism, he needs a point of support in some serious authority, because Anglicanism is just another club for the English and inspires no security. Especially for converted Anglicans, the Papal Infallibility and stability in the Catholic Church is a powerful psychological support. I am sure that all cradle Catholics admire this need that leads toward such a noble end. What I cannot understand, however, is his deliberate ignorance of the progressivist infiltration that has touched all the Roman Congregations and the Papacy itself. Therefore, we cannot apply these principles so quickly and easily to the present-day religious authorities.

I attended to Mr. Davies’ request and I cited not one, but four CDF documents – the Augsburg Accord (see 4A), and three documents about homosexuality that I analyzed in my book In the Murky Waters of Vatican II.

Regarding the latter three documents, Mr. Davies leaped over two of the three and commented on the other, because it was the only one that he “has in his files.” This reason for avoiding the other documents is laughable. The documents that he jumped over are accessible at any good Catholic library. The first one, dated December 29, 1975, is what opened the doors of the Church to the homosexual avalanche that we are witnessing today. The other two documents can only be understood if considered in the wake of the first. Therefore, the omission of the first document is suspicious of being another fraudulent subterfuge.

In the analysis that Davies made of my critique on the only document that he mentioned, he omitted the two premises of the question.

The first premise is the invasion of homosexuality within the Church. No Catholic can be unaware of the shame of pedophilia in the clergy, or not realize that homosexuality has contaminated the seminarians and ecclesiastics to the point that the priesthood is being identified by many with this vice. This avalanche of homosexuality was only possible with the negligence or complicity of the responsible ecclesiastical authority. Unjust? I don’t think so. I am only applying the criteria taught by Pius IX: “The unleashing of every vice and corruption that, alas!, very easily penetrated into the Church …. must be attributed to the Pastors.” (Encyclical Qui pluribus, in Recueil des allocutions et encycliques, Paris, 1865, p. 189). What institution is responsible for maintaining Faith and Morals in the Church? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Mr. Davies left out the first and immense premise of my critique: the avalanche of homosexuality in the Church. He hooded the suspicion that weighs over the CDF and again dishonestly tried to cover the weakness of his position.

My second premise for the analysis of the CDF documents was the following. I affirmed: “We know that more often than not there is a possible conservative interpretation for other excerpts of the documents [of the CDF]. We leave this aside, for it seems to us more consonant with the spirit of Catholic vigilance to pay more attention to evil, which invades with its characteristic force of impact, rather than to good, which is often content to survive this invasion, impassive and silent” (Murky Waters, p. 370).

Mr. Davies read this premise, since he stated: “Having read what he has to say in his book concerning the document I cited ….” Notwithstanding, by citing positive excerpts from that document, he tried to present me as being partial. He is not fair, because I did not deny that the document has good parts. What I said is that it also has bad parts, and these parts favor homosexuality. Why did Mr. Davies pretend to ignore the weaker points of the CDF document? Doesn’t he know that the strength of a chain is that of its weakest link, and this applies to the CDF document? Why did he ignore this premise that I adopted? Once again, Mr. Davies put himself in the position of a dishonest debater who adulterates the position of his opponent.


3. Small fraudulent ruses

Mr. Davies showed himself a master of small fraudulent ruses to disguise his weakness.

A. “I don’t have it in my files” – When it’s not convenient for him to analyze some document, one of his recourses is to affirm that he doesn’t have it in his files (see 2B). I respect one who uses this argument in the private ambit. When someone, however, launches himself in the public arena, he has the obligation to arm himself with the necessary documents for the fight. Should he not do so, his action lacks seriousness. Mr. Davies punctuates his polemic with affirmations of this nature.

B. “As far as my memory serves me” – Another artifice that he uses to sidestep issues is to use his memory as an argument of authority (see 4A). It is necessary to be either juvenile or very presumptuous to imagine that, in a public doctrinal dispute, one should accept the memory of Mr. Davies as a trustworthy source of documentation. What would be justifiable for Davies the secondary school teacher is not admissible for Davies the public polemicist.

C. “The alleged affirmations…” – Frequently he pretends “to forget” the appropriate documentation that was presented to him. When referring to it, he tries to avoid the authority of the cited source. He employs this stratagem in this phrase “Mr. Guimarães cites statements allegedly made by Cardinal Lustiger ….” Now, I did not use any “alleged” statements, I offered objective evidence for what I said. I quoted two interviews of Lustiger, one transcribed by La Documentation Catholique, which is the most serious French source of documentation, and another transcribed by the Parisian daily Le Monde, perhaps the most important French newspaper. I cited both sources with dates for confirmation. Mr. Davies is once again dishonest in his pretended forgetfulness. (See also 1).


4. Fleeing

Another frequent ploy is that of fleeing from the topic at hand because of his uncomfortable situation.

A - The Augsburg Accord – Davies defied me to cite one CDF document that contained error. I cited, among others, the Augsburg Accord, which was a tacit negation of the doctrine of justification of the Council of Trent. The CDF gave its formal approval to the final text, guaranteeing the faithful that it did not contain doctrinal error. On the contrary the document has doctrinal error. The practical negation of the doctrine of justification is a doctrinal error. It constitutes what habitually is called a text with the “flavor of heresy.” Furthermore, it counted on the co-authorship of Cardinal Ratzinger for the final draft. Therefore, it can be considered a text that issued from the two Roman Dicasteries. Todocument this, I cited, with the proper sources and dates, the words of Cardinal Edward Cassidy, at the time head of the Council. I also cited the words of important Protestants describing Ratzinger’s co-authorship.

Ignoring this documentation, Mr. Davies wrote: “I am sure that Mr. Guimarães cannot cite a single doctrinal error in any pronouncement by the CDF. He refers to the Accord of Augsburg. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a CDF document, and the approval of the CDF merely guarantees that it contains no heresy, no denial of ‘de fide’ teachings. Is there such a denial in the Augsburg accord? If my memory serves me rightly, it was denounced by one Lutheran Synod as a surrender to Catholicism.”

Mr. Davies is dishonest in not taking into consideration the sources I cited that proved the co-authorship of Ratzinger in the document. Above all, his escape is notorious in his two last sentences, when he skirts away from the important question of whether there is doctrinal error in the document, which had the approval of the CDF, by recalling an imprecise fact from memory – and then he quickly closes the topic. He flees.

B – Further discussion on homosexuality - Mr. Davies says that he wants evidence showing that the CDF approved documents with errors (see 2B). However, he is not disposed to accept any proof that deals with homosexuality, since he affirms: “Under no circumstances will I get into a debate on homosexuality with him [me].” Why such a fear to deal with the matter? I don’t know. I only record another escape.

C – With regard to Dominus Jesus - The most flagrant flight of Mr. Davies, however, regards his promised debate on Dominus Jesus. We have already celebrated the first anniversary of his decision to combat my position on this document. Up until now, there have only been delays and deviations. Allow me take advantage of the occasion to tell him that I am at his disposal for a serious polemic on Dominus Jesus.


Conclusion

It is sad to see a man with the past of Mr. Davies resorting to the practice of so many dishonest ruses in just one article. I warned him, in my last answer, to be careful about what he would write, since I wanted to avoid making an exposé of such subterfuges. I repeat here the same advice.