Brief Chronicle of Events
On May 10, 2001, the weekly newspaper The
Wanderer published two pieces by Dr. Timothy A. Mitchell, an article
entitled “The Murkinee of the Murky
Waters”, and an ad entitled “With an Apology to David Letterman” with
the subtitle “Ten Reasons Why So-called
‘Murky’ Teachings Have Themselves Become Murky”. Both were against the book In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Mr. Guimarães.
The mainaccusation of Mitchell was that Guimarães would have mislead his readers,
since, according to the accuser, it is not implicitly affirmed that the Church
of Christ is different from the Catholic Church in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican II, which is
what Guimarães sustains in his book. Basing himself on this accusation Mitchell
presents a supposedly satirical poem in his ad spoofing Guimarães’ work.
On June 15, 2001, the bi-weekly The Remnant
published an article entitled “Answer to
Pro Ecclesia” by Mr. Guimarães. The writer responded to Dr. Mitchell by presenting a concrete fact: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, some
months before, had given the same interpretation of the text on the Church of
Christ in Lumen gentium that
Guimarães had presented in his book. Then, he challenged Mitchell either to
disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger or to publicly acknowledge his mistake.
On July 26, 2001, The Wanderer published an
article entitled “The ‘Church of Christ’
and the ‘Catholic Church’ Are One Reality” by Dr. Timothy Mitchell. In the piece the
writer did not address Cardinal Ratzinger’s interpretation of the text in
question and returned to his thesis. He intended to prove that there is no
ambiguity in the text of Lumen gentium,
but his explanation was somewhat ambiguous and quite confusing…
Mr. Guimarães did not revisit this matter with Dr. Mitchell.
On June 7, 2001, The Wanderer published two
different pieces by Dr. Timothy Mitchell, an article, “Pope John Paul II Should Not Respond”
and an ad entitled “Another
Apology to David Letterman” with the subtitle “Ten Reasons Why the Holy See Will Never Change the Papacy”. This time, the article
and ad were against the book An Urgent
Plea: Do Not Change the Papacy by Mr. Atila Guimarães, Mr. Michael Matt,
Mr. John Vennari and Dr. Marian Horvat.
In the article Dr. Mitchell imagined
that the Pope had never touched upon the subject of changing the Papacy. He
also supposed that the book under analysis dealt with a large number of
different themes. Based on these two presuppositions he raised the conclusion
that John Paul II, for lack of time, would never answer the plea of the
authors. Using this conclusion as foundation, Mitchell wrote another piece of
buffoonery published in the ad.
On July 2001, the monthly newspaper Catholic
Family News published the article “Response
to a Court Jester”. The editor, Mr.
John Vennari, invited Mr. Guimarães to make this response. In the piece Mr.
Guimarães showed that Dr. Mitchell was profoundly mistaken in his
presuppositions since John Paul II had officially broached the topic of a
change in the Papacy, a fact documented in the book under discussion. Further,
Guimarães pointed out, the work does not analyze many themes, as Mitchell
imagined.
Therefore, it appeared as if either Mitchell did not read the book he
had criticized, or he did not understand anything of what he read. If Mitchell
did not read the book and nonetheless made a critique and joke about it, then
he was playing the part of a court
jester; if he had read it and was unable to understand its major premises, then
questions could be raised about the health of his mental state.
 Agreement on one point: that Mitchell is playing
the part of a jester
| |
Until this most recent update of this Web page (February 2003) The Wanderer had not published any other
article by Dr. Timothy Mitchell on this matter. The magazine Pro Ecclesia, whose editor is Mitchell,
in its No. 3, October/November 2001 issue, was filled with attacks against
Guimarães and his last reply to Mitchell as well as insults against the four
co-authors of An Urgent Plea: Do Not
Change the Papacy.
Curiously, however, in it Mitchell publicly assumed the
title of court jester. He even went so far as to represent himself as such in a
cartoon (at right). Also, in several
places in that issue he tried to show that he did not suffer any deterioration
of his mental state.
At least both polemists agreed on one point: Dr. Mitchell was objectively
described as a court jester. Taking this in consideration, Mr. Guimarães
decided to close the discussion with an adversary who is more comical than
serious.
Articles in the Polemic
“The Murkinee of the Murky Waters”
and an ad “With an Apology to David Letterman”
by Dr. Timothy A. Mitchell
“Answer to
Pro Ecclesia”
by Mr. Atila Sinke Guimarães
“The ‘Church of Christ’and the ‘Catholic Church’ Are One Reality”
by Dr. Timothy Mitchell
“Pope John Paul II Should Not Respond”
and an ad “Another Apology to David Letterman”
by Dr. Timothy Mitchell
“Response
to a Court Jester”
by Atila Sinke Guimarães
The Murkenee
of “The Murky Waters”
Timothy A. Mitchell
Published in The Wanderer, May 10, 2001
In an effort to substantiate his theory that there is “ambiguity in the texts of Vatican II’s official documents,” Atila Sinke Guimarães began his book, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II with a
few quotes from Lumen gentium
chapter I, section 8.
“If,” he wrote, “an average Catholic” were to read the “first chapter of the Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen gentium, he would
be in for a surprise. ‘This …. sole Church of Christ which is the Creed we
profess to be one, holy, Catholic and apostolic …. constituted and organized as
a society , in the present world subsists in the Catholic Church, [and] is
governed by the successor of Peter’ …. (LG 8b).
This passage,
according to him, “implicitly affirms that there are two distinct realities –
the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church – ….” But the Council does not
teach this. It teaches precisely the opposite.
The Council is clear. On the contrary, the Fathers wrote, “they form one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element” (LG 8a). This is why they prefaced LG 8a with LG 8a – to note that the progressivists beg the
question with their “two realities” theory and invalidate their conclusion.
(This should be pointed out).
His misunderstanding ironically
stems from the use of the inductive method instead of the Thomistic deductive
method.
When
this is realized, the theory of the progressivists that “the Church of Christ
is not the Catholic Church” is reduced to a logical fallacy. Thus, Guimarães
was right to expose this distinction not as a true distinction, but as a
“supposed distinction.”
He was wrong, however, in omitting paragraph 25 of Lumen gentium, which demands that a “religious assent” be given to
the Pope when he teaches that the “Church of Christ” and the “Catholic Church”
are synonymous. This
omission surely qualifies as tendentious, according to chapter 8 of The Murky Waters. To omit the first half
must have been just an oversight. For it surely confirms the traditional
doctrine.
Advertisement published in The
Wanderer, May 10, 2001,
paid for by Pro Ecclesia magazine
"With an Apology to David Letterman"
by Dr. Timothy A. Mitchell
Traditionalists
have long argued the documents of Vatican II are ambiguous. But now is not the
time for resistance. For the Church of Christ and the Church of Écone are in
the process of reconciliation. There is no reason to resist these proceedings.
Toward
that end, we at Pro Ecclesia have penned a David-like list of ten. It is meant
to be tongue-in-cheek, i.e., a serious message lightly put. For these are our
friends and comrades-in-arms in a crusade against a modernist world.
Ten Reasons Why So-called “Murky” Teachings Have Themselves Become Murky:
They promote ambiguity, when they quote texts
selectively.
They further hinder clarity, when this is done
tendentiously.
They claim the Church erred mortally, when She
defined “reality.”
They beg the question logically, when reasoning
conclusively.
They reason too conclusively, that “subsists in” just
“theory” be.
They cogitate inductively, when Thomists think
deductively.
They sometimes ponder carelessly, when teaching
theoretically.
They do not grasp the Council be, an organ of
authority.
They challenge God’s authority, when they speak of
pope-palitry.
They denigrate the Papacy, when they suppose a
heresy.
This message is
a sample of the writings in Pro Ecclesia magazine. A complimentary copy is
yours, if you write to the above address. Also, if you are a practicing
Catholic, do not forget to make your Easter duty. Practice makes perfect.
QUICK LINKS:
Polemic Articles | Polemics Main Page | TIA Home Page | Books |
Audio Cassettes
Answer to Pro Ecclesia
Atila Sinke Guimarães
Published in The Remnant, June 15, 2001
Timothy Mitchell is the editor of the magazine Pro
Ecclesia, which from time to time prints something against me. Recently, in
an attempt to call more attention to his attacks, he published an ad and an
article against my book In the Murky
Waters of Vatican II in the weekly The
Wanderer (May 10, 2001).
The ad,
which tried to be funny, was titled With
an Apology to David Letterman, with the subtitle: Ten Reasons Why So-called “Murky” Teachings Have Themselves Become
Murky. I have no special comments to make on this ad. I only wish success
to Mr. Mitchell in the career of comedian that he seems to want to pursue.
I also understand that The Wanderer is trying to open a comic section to attract new
subscribers, since it is being said that many serious subscribers have
abandoned it because they do not agree with its obstinate blindness in seeing
how high-reaching the crisis in the Church has extended.
As for the short
article by Mr. Mitchell titled The
Murkinee of the Murky Waters, it can be summarized in one accusation which
he levels against me. He says that in the aforementioned book, I would have
mislead my readers when I analyzed a passage of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican II, which
affirms that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, but rather
subsists in her.
In The Murky Waters of Vatican II, I ask:
How could the Church of Christ be more ample than the Catholic Church? It seems
a very strange statement. Mr. Mitchell pretends that I dishonestly disregarded
a part of the document that would prove exactly the opposite of what I affirm,
which would be that, according to the Council, the Church of Christ would be
identical to the Catholic Church. This bad-intentioned desire on my part would
turn against myself my affirmation that the documents of Vatican II are
ambiguous and “murky the waters” of Church teachings. It would be I who would
be “murkying the waters” of the teaching of Lumen
gentium.
I respond to Mr.
Mitchell with a fact and some questions.
The fact. In an
interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung early October 2000, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – one of
the idols of the blind-conservatives like Mr. Mitchell – complained about the
non-objective critiques of his document
Dominus Jesus. He stated that the document reiterated the same doctrine of
Vatican II. The Cardinal explained that the Council did not use the expression
of Pius XII, according to which “the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church
of Jesus Christ.” Instead, he said, Lumen
gentium 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 – this is still Ratzinger who is reasoning – it
wanted to affirm “that the being of the Church [of Christ] as such is a larger
identity than the Roman Catholic Church.” I am quoting quite literally
Ratzinger’s words, according to the Zenith
Agency dispatch of October 8, 2000.
Therefore, only
a few months ago, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith made the same interpretation of Lumen
gentium that I made in my book, against which Mr. Mitchell has launched the
accusation of dishonesty.
Here I pose some questions to my comic
adversary: Do you think that Cardinal Ratzinger is right or wrong? If he is
right, why are you accusing me of misleading my readers when I offer them the
same interpretation that Ratzinger made of the Church of Christ? If he is
wrong, are you also willing to accuse the Cardinal of the Roman Congregation
of “murkying the waters” of the correct
interpretation of Lumen gentium?
I invite my
reader to wait and see if Mr. Timothy Mitchell, who accuses me of dishonesty,
will have the manly honesty to respond to these questions, acknowledge the
reality, and retract his accusation.
QUICK LINKS:
Polemic Articles | Polemics Main Page | TIA Home Page | Books |
Audio Cassettes
The “Church of Christ” and
the “Catholic Church” Are One Reality
Timothy Mitchell
Published in The Wanderer, July 26, 2001
The Second Vatican Council used the philosophical term “subsists in” to clarify the
ontological relationship of the “Church of Christ” to the “Catholic Church.”
Clearly, in the
order of ontology, the Catholic Church is a broader entity, because the Church
of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, not the other way around.
As such, the
Catholic Church can exist without the Church of Christ, but the Church of
Christ cannot exist without the Catholic Church.
This is academic
and Matthew summed it up concisely: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will
build My Church [not churches] and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail” (Matt.
16:18).
They cannot
prevail because of sanctifying grace – whose source is the Catholic Church and
whose fullness (along with the fullness of truth) is hers exclusively.
But because
there are elements of grace outside the Catholic Church (Christian baptism, for
example), the source of grace (in the order of grace) combined with sacraments
as administered by the Catholic Church would make (in the order of society) the
Church of Christ (in the orders of grace and society) a broader entity.
There is no
contradiction here, and so it is proper to say there are two distinct
designations here, but they comprise one complex reality.
Lumen gentium is precise: This one
complex reality “is comprised of a divine and human element,” and can be
“compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the Incarnate Word.”
As such, the
Church of Christ and the Catholic Church can be compared to the two natures in
Christ and why the Catholic Church can no more be considered human than the
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity can be spoken of as a human person.
The Catholic
Church is divine as the Second Person is divine and has two natures: the Church
of Christ, which is human and the Mystical Body of Christ, which is divine.
This is why Pope Pius XII said the “Mystical Body of Christ” is the “Catholic Church” and the
Council said: The “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.”
Lumen gentium explains this
unambiguously in 8a and 8b (Flannery’s edition), but both paragraphs must be
read as a unit, if murkiness is to be avoided. Paragraph 8a sums up the
Church’s teachings in five crisp sentences. We have presented them (in the
interest of better understanding) in five one-sentence paragraphs as the whole
paper is composed of one-sentence paragraphs:
“The one
mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains His holy Church, the community
of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which He
communicates truth and grace to all men.
“But the society
structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, the
visible society and spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church
endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities.
“On the
contrary, they form one complex reality which comes together from a human and a
divine element.
“For this reason,
the Church is compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the
Incarnate Word.
“As the assumed
nature, inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of
salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the
Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in building up of the body
(cf. Eph. 4:15).”
Clearly then,
the progressivists who posit the erroneous theory that “the Church of Christ is
not the Catholic Church” are wrong. For Holy Mother Church has expressed (and
teaches) the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church comprise one complex
reality.
QUICK LINKS:
Polemic Articles | Polemics Main Page | TIA Home Page | Books |
Audio Cassettes
Pope John Paul
II Should Not Respond
Timothy Mitchell
Published in The Wanderer, June 7, 2001
In the April 30, 2001 issue of The Remnant,
there appeared an “urgent appeal” to the Holy See not to change the papacy.
Since there is no evidence that Rome is even considering such a radical move,
one wonders why such a plea was penned by four scholarly writers.
The
writers are: Atila Sinke Guimarães, author of the 11-volume The Murky Waters of Vatican; Michael
Matt, editor of The Remnant; John
Vennari, columnist and commentator on Catholic matters; and Marian Horvat,
professor and translator.
The article runs over six pages. It covers a myriad of topics, ranging from altar
girls, so-called “inferior” Masses, the death penalty, ecumenism, Tradition,
and the “Disciples of Christ.”
Page one of the paper blares: “The authors of We
Resist You to the Face Beg Pope John Paul to Save the Papacy.”
Although there are materials by Archbishop John Quinn, Yves Cardinal Congar, Karl
Cardinal Lehmann, and others, there is not one footnote (out of 39) to even
give the slightest inkling that His Holiness has even thought of such an
abstract possibility.
There is a scholarly term-paper-like analysis of the Papacy (including a discussion
on the pontificates of Pius IX and Gregory XVI), the French Revolution,
conciliarism, subsidiarity, modernism, Freemasonry, the People of God, and the
like. But there is nothing to even give a hint as to why the authors think such
a change is pending.
They
hope the Pope or some representative of the Vatican will respond to their
“filial request” to “open a dialogue.”
Whether
or not someone will is academic. In absence thereof, Pro Ecclesia Foundation
has responded – with a paid ad. We ask for a similar dialogue, but not with the
Pope. He is far too busy.
Advertisement published in The
Wanderer, June 7, 2001,
paid for by Pro Ecclesia magazine
"Another Apology to David Letterman"
by Dr. Timothy A. Mitchell
In the
April 30 issue of The Remnant there
is a disturbing plea to the Holy See not to “change the Papacy,” which
presupposes the abstract possibility that such a change is being considered.
It
was written by four scholarly writers and is interesting, although it does not
really advance the thesis significantly.
Herewith,
a response to that thesis:
Ten Reasons Why the Holy See Will Never Change
the Papacy:
An “altar girl” is not a priest, that says it all, to
say the least.
All masses are “superior,” there is not one
“inferior.”
There’s been no change doctrinally, concerning the
“death penalty.”
‘Tis the same Mass, sit we or stand, or take
communion in the hand.
The Church is ecumenical, because the Lord died for
us all.
“Tradition” has authority, when in line with the Holy
See.
Reform of Church and Papacy does not involve the
laity.
“Disciples of Christ” often be quite ignorant,
invincibly.
The same applies to others too, they simply may not
know what’s true.
And this applies especially to matters of liceity.
This message is
a sample of the writings in Pro Ecclesia magazine. A complimentary copy is yours, if you write to the above address.
QUICK LINKS:
Polemic Articles | Polemics Main Page | TIA Home Page | Books |
Audio Cassettes
Response to a Court Jester
Atila Sinke Guimarães
Published in Catholic
Family News, July 2001
In an article
recently published in the weekly The
Wanderer (June 7, 2001, p.11),
Mr. Timothy Mitchell attacks the document An
Urgent Plea: Do Not Change the Papacy. He also publishes an advertisement
in which, for the second time, he tries to be funny, imitating a well-known
late-night talk show host. As in his prior attack, here also I exempt myself
from refuting the supposedly comical ad of Mr. Mitchell. I allow him free rein
to exercise his gifts of court jester, a role for which he seems to have been
contracted by The Wanderer.I will respond only to his article.
I had the honor
of signing the document mentioned above, together with my friends, Michael
Matt, John Vennari, and Marian Horvat. In view of the present attack, John, the
valorous editor of Catholic Family News,
proposed that I make a brief response. Here it is.
Mr. Mitchell
claims that our document is not based on any clear and evident desire of John
Paul II to reform the Papacy. He affirms: “Since there is no evidence that Rome
is even considering such a radical move….” And, further on, “there is not one
footnote (out of the 39) to even give the slightest inkling that His Holiness
has even thought of such an abstract possibility.”
However, the
truth is the exact opposite of what Mr. Mitchell affirms.
First, the most important point of the
Encyclical Ut unum sint is precisely
the proposition of John Paul II to reform the Papacy. The eleven most salient
points for such a change presented in the Encyclical are cited in Section IV of
An Urgent Plea.
Second, in his book The Reform of the Papacy,
Archbishop John Quinn based his suggestions and commentaries for changing the
way the Petrine Primacy functions on the same Ut unum sint. Section V of our document cites five excerpts from
Msgr. Quinn’s work that directly cite or interpret the aforementioned
Encyclical of John Paul II.
Third, in the same section, we cite, by
way of example, two books and six articles that recently reported the reform of
the Papacy as an imminent fact. Among those articles is “A Papacy for a Global
Church” by Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J.
Fourth, in Section VII (footnote 35) we cite, again by way of example, five responses coming from non-Catholic sources that reply to the invitation of John Paul II to study new ways to exercise the papal ministry in order to please the Schismatics and Protestants.
In face of this considerable index of proofs, the droll Mr. Mitchell affirms publicly that he did not find “even the slightest inkling” that the Pope wants the mentioned reform.
Further,
Mr. Mitchell makes another surprising affirmation: “The article…. covers a
myriad of topics.” On the contrary, our document is monothematic, it deals only
with the reform of the Papacy. The introduction, all the parts, and the
conclusion are focused on this single point. In one note (n. 32) we cite an
article by Michael J. Matt, in which he opens a fan of cases where legitimate
resistance to errors of a Pope is justified. |
This cartoon and caption was published on the front page of Pro Ecclesiamagazine (No 3, 2001). It seemed the fitting point to close this debate.
| |
However, this note serves merely
as exemplification, and is not an integral part of the text, as any reader with
good sense can understand. Therefore, once again, Mr. Mitchell is completely
wrong.
Given
these two blatant errors that Mr. Mitchell commits with regard to the content
of the document An Urgent Plea, I
believe that two hypotheses can be raised.
First, Mr. Mitchell did not read the book that he criticized. In this case, it would be a complete lack of seriousness to publish his critique. We are in the presence of a court jester. This type of intellectual buffoonery also seems to me to be an affront to the readers of The Wanderer, who have the right to expect at least a semblance of truth in what contributors to the paper write.
Second, Mr. Mitchell did read the document and understood absolutely nothing. Here the matter is more delicate. It would seem that watching too many late night television shows would have had deleterious consequences on the mind of Mr. Mitchell. In that case, out of consideration for his mental state, I cease to argue.
|
