The whole thing can be condensed down to this excerpt:
"Thus, if post-conciliar churchmen have knowingly upheld liberal errors, their sincerity does not exempt them from the charge of pertinacity, if they are aware—and how could they not be?—that their liberal ideas are contrary to truths proposed by the Church. A metaphorical “mental sickness” cannot excuse their actions if they retain the natural use of reason, and a disposition contrary to submission to the Church."
And of course, by their own admissions, many of the conciliar fathers HAVE knowingly upheld liberal errors. I'm thinking of von Balthasaar saying "We must raze the bastions," or Congar admitting certain provisions of Dignitatis Humanae "say materially the opposite" of the Syllabus of Pius IX, or saying that "the Church has had peacefully its October Revolution," and on, and on, and on.
This is the kind of stuff that makes WM Review worth paying for!
"Henricus Institoris & Jacobus Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum, 490. 1486, published in English as The Hammer of Witches, ed. Christopher S. Mackay, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009." Well, what an excellent Father's Day gift this will be to myself.
Thank you for writing this article as it addresses many of the problems with the “totalist” viewpoint which also underpins “the thesis.” It was exactly what I was looking for.
Re: “8. If a doctrine is well known and has been sufficiently proposed, its rejection can be sufficient to prove pertinacity if accompanied by other indicators that exclude reasonable doubt.”
How do we know if a doctrine has been sufficiently proposed?
I hear you.
What a great article!
The whole thing can be condensed down to this excerpt:
"Thus, if post-conciliar churchmen have knowingly upheld liberal errors, their sincerity does not exempt them from the charge of pertinacity, if they are aware—and how could they not be?—that their liberal ideas are contrary to truths proposed by the Church. A metaphorical “mental sickness” cannot excuse their actions if they retain the natural use of reason, and a disposition contrary to submission to the Church."
And of course, by their own admissions, many of the conciliar fathers HAVE knowingly upheld liberal errors. I'm thinking of von Balthasaar saying "We must raze the bastions," or Congar admitting certain provisions of Dignitatis Humanae "say materially the opposite" of the Syllabus of Pius IX, or saying that "the Church has had peacefully its October Revolution," and on, and on, and on.
This is the kind of stuff that makes WM Review worth paying for!
Thanks very much Sean!
"Henricus Institoris & Jacobus Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum, 490. 1486, published in English as The Hammer of Witches, ed. Christopher S. Mackay, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009." Well, what an excellent Father's Day gift this will be to myself.
It's an interesting text....!
Thank you for writing this article as it addresses many of the problems with the “totalist” viewpoint which also underpins “the thesis.” It was exactly what I was looking for.
Re: “8. If a doctrine is well known and has been sufficiently proposed, its rejection can be sufficient to prove pertinacity if accompanied by other indicators that exclude reasonable doubt.”
How do we know if a doctrine has been sufficiently proposed?