For Catholics living in the middle part of Illinois, toward the very end of the Diocese of Joliet or to the northern part of the Diocese of Peoria, please consider going to this special Mass.
Read more >>
Monday, March 12, 2012
Be Thou Peter!
Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, J.C.D,
President of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement
This letter was originally sent to Pope Paul VI as a private communication between a priest and the Supreme Pontiff who, two years earlier, had blessed and commissioned him as leader of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (C.T.M.). ...
TIA reproduces here important excerpts of this letter, which was sent to Pope Paul VI on August 15, 1967, by Father Gommar A. DePauw, J.C.D, President of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. Father DePauw died on the morning of May 6, 2005. His biography is available here.
The subtitles were added by TIA’s website desk
Your Holiness:
I still vividly remember that December 1, 1965 evening when Your Holiness personally blessed me and my work with the traditionalist Catholics who selected me to be their spokesman ….
I equally remember how Your Holiness literally begged me to urge the Catholics I was to lead in their fight for “TRUTH and TRADITION,” not to lose faith in the Church. And Your Holiness justified that request by stating: “Once the dust stirred up by the recent Ecumenical Council will have settled down, the Church will come out of all this with renewed strength and vigor.”
May I humbly submit that during this past year and a half I have labored as hard as any human individual could to do precisely what Your Holiness asked me to do: to keep the faith in our Church alive among those Catholics who had justifiedly become alarmed to the point of publicly asking themselves and others: “What, in the name of God, is happening to our Catholic Church?!” And may I add that one of the principal aspects of my efforts to keep that faith in our Church alive has consistently been the stressing of belief in the divine foundation of the Roman Papacy and respectful loyalty to its present incumbent, Your Holiness, Paul VI.
Already then, December 1, 1965, Your Holiness asked me to realize that our Church was going through “one of the gravest crises in her history.” If such a description of our Church’s condition was true then, how much more can the same be said of our Church today! To say that it has gone from bad to worse would be the understatement of the century.
Today's condition of the Catholic Church is beyond the point of doctrinal heresy, factual schism, and even apostasy. It is in a state of chaos and utter collapse resulting from the systematic destruction of first our liturgical and other traditions, and now our very beliefs and morals ….
In open violation of all past and present liturgical directives, the Roman Catholic Liturgy, once the envy of all other religions, has for all practical purposes been destroyed. And it gives us very little personal satisfaction to know that all those responsible for this destruction were in advance irrevocably anathematized by the still valid solemn decree of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be cursed.”(Canons of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, n. 9.)
Coercive changes have subrogated our traditional practices with the “litniks”of our Church Establishment daily intensifying their attempts to subjugate the “people of God” to becoming “Protestant” Catholics.
Our churches are no longer Catholic in appearance, atmosphere, or aim. Tables looking like butcher blocks or ironing boards have replaced our altars in perfect harmony with the 16th century Protestant Reformation directives bent on destroying the belief in the dogma of Transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the Mass and replacing it with a symbolical trans-signification-communal meal.
Our Holy Mass has disappeared an in its place our people are offered a holy mess of vernacularized vacuum stripped of the surety, serenity, uniformity, and dignity of our traditional Latin liturgy.
Hymns associated with the anti-Catholic rebellions of Luther, Calvin and Wesley have unceremoniously uprooted our cherished Catholic hymns to our God and the Blessed Mother, while our uniquely Catholic Gregorian and polyphonic music has been discarded for sounds and instruments sometimes borrowed from the decadent milieu of young human animals.
Communion rails are ripped out and Holy Communion is refused to the “people of God” unless they stand (not kneel) to receive Him at the mention of Whose name all knees should bend, if one is still to trust the text of the “unrevised” New Testament we were given at one time in our Catholic institutions.
The Most Blessed Sacrament, to be reserved in “the central place of honor” according to the legitimate liturgical directives, is relegated to an obscure shoe box-type niche, playing much less than second fiddle to the throne-type chair of the presiding clerical Buddha set up in dead center of a religious flavored discotheque-barn, from which the traditional statues and Stations of the Cross have been shipped to the nearest auction gallery or antiques shop.
A steadily increasing number of once unsuspecting Catholics are suddenly realizing that, as we predicted more than two years ago, they are gradually, first with subtle and then with increasing bold changes in the liturgy, being ushered into a humanistic rite of a universal brotherhood meal expressive of the existentialist pantheistic concepts of an illuminated “one-world-religion” preparing the way for a Communist controlled “one-world-government.”
The aggiornamento changed dogmatic and moral precepts
But, not only our liturgical traditions have been destroyed. The very beliefs and morals of our Catholic heritage are now up for grabs in our so-called “Church of the Aggiornamento.” Steadily, day in and day out since Vatican II, silt has subversively been shunted in to the minds of the Roman Catholics in America.
Our “Catholic” universities, seminaries, and colleges are bluntly rejecting the religious character that justifies their existence, and their teachers of the “new theology” are calling into question, if not outright rejecting, every tenet of our doctrinal heritage ….
Sunday after Sunday our traditional dogmas and moral precepts are denigrated with pseudo-modern preachments of Socialism or worse emanating from our pulpits occupied by “new breed” clergymen, whose pathological obsession with sex has brought them to the low point of not only advocating the end of clerical celibacy, but even of condoning Fornication, homosexuality, trial marriages, artificial birth control, divorce, and abortion.
Our Church Establishment's press and radio and television presentations are totally captured by the same heretical forces. And our once respected nuns not only have become nonentity “nones” with absurdity of demeanor and dress, but are sabotaging the religious instruction of our youngsters and children by replacing our traditional catechisms with brain-washing religion (?) books subtly poisoning the minds of our coming generations into gradual acceptance of first a unitarian, then a pantheistic, and finally an atheistic philosophy of life.
While some of our American Cardinals and Bishops are way in front of these apostatic hordes of religious rioters, the rest of our Hierarchy are burying their heads in the sand, rocking their consciences to sleep with the proverbial “Everything will be O.K.!” or trying to compensate for the trust and respect they no longer command among their own Catholic people by hob-nobbing with those outside-the-fold merely to produce nothing but a superficial inter-faith harmony built on the swift sand of doctrinal compromise and false hopes.
Your Holiness, we traditionalist Catholics see the evil visibly extant and reject any portion of that evil!
Rejection of the Conciliar Church
Your Holiness …. taking a closer look at the “Conciliar” church forced upon us in the name of Vatican II, and simply judging the tree by its fruits, we are tempted to agree with one of your own immediate collaborators in Rome who has been quoted as characterizing the recent Vatican Council as “a sinister farce acted out by a number of good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold crosses on their chests, don't even believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin.”
Your Holiness, we were, we are, and we intend to remain members of the CATHOLIC Church, and we refuse to become absorbed into any new CONCILIAR church! WE CONDEMN AND REJECT THE CONCILIAR CHURCH!
In spite of all the gigantic and expensive promotional techniques used to “sell” it, the “Conciliar” church fails to fascinate the public, and refuses to spiritually refresh the individual. Instead it is repugnant to the point of rejection so tragically evident in the all-time low of our conversion rate and religious vocations, and the pathetic trek of our most loyal and devout Catholics transferring the almost snuffed out candle of traditional Catholic beliefs and practices from our desecrated churches to the underground sanctuary of their hearts and homes.
Responsibility of Paul VI
Your Holiness, if no IMMEDIATE ACTION is taken by YOU, the public reality of the Catholic religion will phase out very soon. Already the memory of a “real” Mass is fading away from the minds of our younger generation, while their elders are growing indifferent or bitter over a Church which, if all her former beliefs and practices were so irrelevant as to be replaced so quickly and drastically, they prefer to forget as the biggest hoax ever on record.
Your Holiness, take one last, hard look at the dying embers of your Church and ours! And decide, bluntly and honestly, whether you wish to be a POPE, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the one true Church, or to perpetuate your current image of the BISHOP of Rome, the first among equals, with a place of HONOR but without authority within the ranks of a so-called “college” of Bishops …..
We of the C.T.M. still refuse to join the increasing number of Catholics all over the world who accuse you of being part of the team out to destroy the Church we once knew, and of being less interested in remaining the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's one true Church than in becoming the Chief-Chaplain of a new one-world religion in the service of a one-world government.
We of the C.T.M. still have pent up in the reserve of our hearts the enthusiastic loyalty we, traditionalist Catholics, exclusively set apart for our Supreme Pontiff. And we would like nothing better than to forget the past four years and shower our loyalty on a Paul VI turned into a new Saint Pius X who had the courage to face the reality of enemies within our own ranks and the integrity to condemn them. The first four years of your pontificate, Your Holiness, have been disappointing to the most loyal of your sons and daughters. But, late as it is, you still have the opportunity to once more be capable instead of culpable.
Practical suggestions
May we, the traditionalist Catholics whose unworthy spokesman I am, help Your Holiness out of the impasse your enemies cornered you into, by humbly submitting to you the following requests:
Vatican II must be annulled.
Publicly announce via all available international public media that you are again exercising the prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's One True Church, and that the interregnum of Vatican II is over ….
[The Vatican II turned out to be a horrible mistake.] Maybe it was precisely the fear of this horrendous possibility that caused the Holy Ghost to have Pope John declare from the very start that Vatican II, unlike all previous Ecumenical Councils, was not a DOCTRINAL Council but simply a PASTORAL one, thus leaving the door open for any future Pope to eradicate it from the records.
Your Holiness, when honest people commit a blunder they admit it and try to undo it as quickly as possible. Vatican II has so far produced nothing but confusion and disunity among the people of God's Church. It takes humility and courage to admit that even a Pope, outside the realm of his infallible ex cathedra definitions, can commit a blunder. But it is this kind of humility that endears a truly great leader to his subjects. Even so, you know better than all of us together that to lose face is nothing compared to losing souls.
Rescind that falsely interpreted and abused “Collegiality” decree IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY. The burden of the Papacy cannot be shared and was never intended to be. To Peter and to him alone were given the keys of the Kingdom. Peter and Peter ALONE was appointed to strengthen the faith of “his brethren,” the first bishops who governed the primitive Church not just WITH but UNDER Peter. Stop wearing that Bishop's mitre and place the papal tiara back on your anointed head where it was placed the day you accepted to serve as Christ's Vicar and Supreme Pontiff. You accepted the job; you have tasted the privileges – now, taste the responsibilities; they are the two sides of the same coin. Give us another opportunity to let the world know once again that: “HABEMUS PAPAM!” We have a Pope!
Stop accepting decisions made by your alleged “advisors.” Stand on your own two feet! These advisors have led you and the Church into the abyss of their anti-Christ activity. They have forced you into a world position of being apparently at ease in such impossible situations as your praying at the pantheistic monstrosity of the United Nations’ “meditation room,” your denying to the favorite visionary child of Fatima the favor granted to publicly known, unrepentant examples of degraded womanhood, your hobnobbing and exchanging symbols of religious authority with leaders of what still are heretical or schismatic sects, and above all, your lending respectability to the leaders of international Communism, which is still out to destroy our Church and all other religious bodies for that matter.
Stop listening to the politically attuned and diabolical-oriented “advisors” who have infiltrated the highest echelons of our Church, exactly as Our Lady foretold in her last message of Fatima which has been unjustifiedly withheld from our Catholic people for seven years now ….
Listen instead to the genuine Roman Catholic, the traditionalist “man and woman in the pew” who want their Pope to act like a Pope; the same Catholic who continues to kneel when receiving his living God in Holy Communion; who still prays the Rosary to his Mother in Heaven; who still genuflects at the words “And the Word was made flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man”; who still reads the Last Gospel of St. John in his or her worn-out missal; who still says the Leonine prayers after Mass for the conversion of Russia; who still abstains from meat on Fridays; who still goes to church on Sundays instead of Saturdays; in one word, the traditionalist Catholics who refuse to turn their backs on the Son of God for any son of man, despite the red or purple he proudly preens ….
Your Holiness! In the name of Jesus Christ, your and our Lord and Saviour, have the courage to disperse the false shepherds and listen to your own conscience! Prove once again to friend and foe alike that the gates of Hell did indeed not prevail. Stir the embers of a dying Church and, with gallant despair, make her once more a House of Refuge in lieu of a house of refuse. Bind instead of grind the gnawing wounds of Christ's Mystical Body ….
Your Holiness! If we do not receive a satisfactory answer from Your Holiness or at least are given an opportunity to discuss our requests and proposals with Your Holiness personally - within the next month, we shall consider our requests denied and our proposals rejected, and draw the sad and tragic conclusion that Our Mother the Church has temporarily abandoned the best ones of her children.
I pray to God and to His blessed Mother whose Assumption we commemorate today – and millions all over the world are joining me in this prayer – that such a dark and tragic day will never come. But, if we have no other choice, we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual “Resistance” movement without the hoped-for papal approval ….
Holy Father! Do no reject the best and most loyal ones of your sons and daughters! But, even if Paul VI would close his soul and heart to us – Quod Deus avertat! – we will not reject the Papacy!
Abandoned by you, we would sorrowfully pray and wait for the day a new successor of St. Peter would open his arms again to those of his children whose only crime it was to live up to the admonition of your patron saint: “Even if an angel from Heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be cursed.” (Gal 1: 8), or of those other early Church leaders who taught us: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5: 29) ….
Prayerfully expecting Your Holiness' fatherly reply to this final anguished cry of today's “Suffering Church,” I beg to remain.
Your loyal and devoted son in Jesus Christ,
Fr. Gommar A. DePauw
History of Lector
The Order of the Lector has been around since ancient times and this has served as an important function since the time of the Early Christians. As explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
In this image, we can see the dignity in which the Traditional Order of Lector is conferred.
The seminarian upon receiving the Order of Lector would hear: "May you believe with all you heart and accomplish in your actions that which your lips read... As you stand erect to read, you ought also to give good example and practice a height degree of virtue than those who listen to you."
The duty of the lector is (and was) to chant the Epistle when Mass is sung without a deacon and subdeacon. This of course can only take place in the context of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Now enter the Novus Ordo and the unprecedented changes to the Sacraments.
In 1972, Pope Paul VI drastically altered the Minor Orders, essentially wiping them away and destroying much of the tradition of the Church. Indeed, one may attribute to this action the very words from Paul VI, "...the smoke of satan has entered the Church." Pope Paul VI’s motu proprio Ministeria Quaedam (1972) stated, "What up to now were called minor orders are henceforth to be called ministries." He would also state that "their conferral will not be called ordination, but institution."
Why does this matter?
As explained in a scholarly article entitled Doubtfulness of New Catholic Ordination Rite, I wish to quote from one of the latter parts of the article: "The attack on the priesthood was also accomplished in ways that are practical and demonstrative. The conciliar revolution sought to make the priest a mere leader of the congregation, by bringing him down to the people’s level in various ways, including but not limited to:
A.) The use of lay Eucharistic ministers, to make this priestly role one that anyone can fulfill; B.) The use of lay lectors for the same reason; C.) The practice of communion in the hand,to remove the distinction between the priest’s consecrated hands and the hands of laymen; D.) The practice of general absolution, to eliminate the priest’s role as judge in the sacrament of penance"
This does not even look like this belongs in a Catholic Church!
Women are now Lectors in the Novus Ordo!
Anyone that has attended a Novus Ordo Mass has likely seen women reading the readings for Mass, which is problematic enough for reasons above. But now, in a direction violation of Sacred Teachings of the Church, the Synod of Bishops in 2008 went so far as to advise Pope Benedict XVI to allow women to receive the new "ministry" of Lector! This is a stepping stone to having women-priests within the Novus Ordo Church.
How long will Catholics continue to accept the Novus Ordo changes and regularly attend them, when in fact, they are subscribing to the Protestant practices of Luther, Kramer, and the other so-called Reformers.
My advice is relatively simple, find a Traditional Mass with priests ordained through a lineage of traditionally ordained bishops. This is now the only way to be certain of a priest's proper and valid ordination. What times we live in - how very troubling to the True Church and to our Lord. Yet so many falsely follow along with neoprotestanism in the so-called name of "obedience" when in fact we must be obedient to the Commandments and teachings of God, as revealed throughout two millennia in His Church, rather than follow the whims and novelties of the New Church leaders.
Read more >>
The Order of the Lector has been around since ancient times and this has served as an important function since the time of the Early Christians. As explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
A lector (reader) in the West is a clerk having the second of the four minor orders. In all Eastern Churches also, readers are ordained to a minor order preparatory to the diaconate. The primary reason for a special class of readers was the need of some persons sufficiently educated to be able to read the books in church, for the Christians continued the Jewish practice of reading the Sacred Books publicly. The first mention of a Christian liturgical reader is by Justin Martyr (d. about 165) in I Apol., lxvii, 3, 4.For centuries the Order of Lector was a minor Order, an office to which a man on the path to ordination to the priesthood was ordained. In the Traditional Roman Rite, it is the second minor order (Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus).
The seminarian upon receiving the Order of Lector would hear: "May you believe with all you heart and accomplish in your actions that which your lips read... As you stand erect to read, you ought also to give good example and practice a height degree of virtue than those who listen to you."
The duty of the lector is (and was) to chant the Epistle when Mass is sung without a deacon and subdeacon. This of course can only take place in the context of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Now enter the Novus Ordo and the unprecedented changes to the Sacraments.
In 1972, Pope Paul VI drastically altered the Minor Orders, essentially wiping them away and destroying much of the tradition of the Church. Indeed, one may attribute to this action the very words from Paul VI, "...the smoke of satan has entered the Church." Pope Paul VI’s motu proprio Ministeria Quaedam (1972) stated, "What up to now were called minor orders are henceforth to be called ministries." He would also state that "their conferral will not be called ordination, but institution."
Why does this matter?
As explained in a scholarly article entitled Doubtfulness of New Catholic Ordination Rite, I wish to quote from one of the latter parts of the article: "The attack on the priesthood was also accomplished in ways that are practical and demonstrative. The conciliar revolution sought to make the priest a mere leader of the congregation, by bringing him down to the people’s level in various ways, including but not limited to:
A.) The use of lay Eucharistic ministers, to make this priestly role one that anyone can fulfill; B.) The use of lay lectors for the same reason; C.) The practice of communion in the hand,to remove the distinction between the priest’s consecrated hands and the hands of laymen; D.) The practice of general absolution, to eliminate the priest’s role as judge in the sacrament of penance"
Women are now Lectors in the Novus Ordo!
Anyone that has attended a Novus Ordo Mass has likely seen women reading the readings for Mass, which is problematic enough for reasons above. But now, in a direction violation of Sacred Teachings of the Church, the Synod of Bishops in 2008 went so far as to advise Pope Benedict XVI to allow women to receive the new "ministry" of Lector! This is a stepping stone to having women-priests within the Novus Ordo Church.
How long will Catholics continue to accept the Novus Ordo changes and regularly attend them, when in fact, they are subscribing to the Protestant practices of Luther, Kramer, and the other so-called Reformers.
My advice is relatively simple, find a Traditional Mass with priests ordained through a lineage of traditionally ordained bishops. This is now the only way to be certain of a priest's proper and valid ordination. What times we live in - how very troubling to the True Church and to our Lord. Yet so many falsely follow along with neoprotestanism in the so-called name of "obedience" when in fact we must be obedient to the Commandments and teachings of God, as revealed throughout two millennia in His Church, rather than follow the whims and novelties of the New Church leaders.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Whether St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is Philosophically Sound?
Objection 1: It would seem that Anselm’s ontological argument is sound. Anselm was canonized in 1494 and given the distinction of Doctor of the Church in the 18th century. Therefore, since the Church only honors those individuals who promote orthodoxy and do not adhere to heresy, St. Anselm’s ontological argument must be considered by all Catholics as not only philosophically valid but also sound.
Objection 2: Unlike other substances, the Necessary Existent (i.e. God) has existence as its very essence. And, as such, existence must always be applied to God; it is impossible to imagine the Necessary Existent in a state of not existing. Therefore, Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate is incorrect.
On the Contrary, Immanuel Kant states, “Time and labour therefore are lost on the famous ontological (Cartestian) proof of the existence of a Supreme Being from mere concepts; and a man might as well imagine that he could become richer in knowledge by mere ideas, as a merchant in capital, if, in order to improve his position, he were to add a few noughts to his cash account" (Beck 291).
I answer that, Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound in the first and third premises, which render the entirety of the argument unsound. Anselm’s argument utilizes a reduction-ad-absurdum approach, whereby Anselm affirms the fool’s claim that there is no God (cf. Psalms xiv. I). Assuming that the fool was correct, then God, that which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in understanding but not in reality. But, it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in understanding. Therefore, God exists in reality. Anselm’s argument in a more enumerated form states the following:
1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived
2. God exists in understanding (established in the Psalms)
3. It is greater to exist in reality than in understanding alone
4. If God does not exist in reality, then that which nothing greater can be conceived does not equal that which nothing greater can be conceived
5. Therefore, God exists in reality and not only in understanding
First, one must examine the notion that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. While such a definition can be theologically orthodox, such a definition is not truly sufficient for the sake of Anselm’s argument. When a person attempts to conceive of this definition, it is impossible to deposit any sort of perceivable reality in his or her mind. No observable color, condition, or state is able to be deposited and as such, the one following the argument does not deposit any real substance in his or her mind.
Thomas Aquinas provides a sufficient objection to Anselm when he observes the distinction between the condition of being self-evident in itself and not to us and self-evident in itself and to us. Since Anselm argues that the existence of God can be known through reason alone and without any observation of the world, it seems that Anselm claims that the existence of God is self-evident in itself and to us. After all, he believes that through reason alone mankind can assent to God, and the existence of God is consequently self evident to all. Thomas argues, “If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all,” (I Q. 2, art. 1 responsio) yet, he further clarifies that if the predicate and subject are unknown to some then the proposition is not self-evident in itself and to us.
Furthermore, Aquinas observes the following observation in the proposition ‘God exists’: “Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us…” (I Q. 2, art. 1 responsio).
Therefore, by Aquinas’ logic, Anselm’s argument is insufficient because the initial premise is above the ability of a human being to adequately consider and thereby actually deposit a reality in one’s mind. God’s existence is not self-evident to us, and Anselm’s argument based in large part on definition alone is not sufficient to convert a non-believer. However, in his most blatant rebuttal to Anselm’s definition of God, Thomas states, “Perhaps not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body” (I Q. 2, art. Ad 2) And, consequently, the soundness of Anselm’s first premise in the ontological argument is questionable.
Secondly, Anselm’s usage of a priori demonstration to arrive at the conclusion of God’s existence is lacking in comparison to a posteriori demonstration, thereby discrediting his argument. Similarly, according to Thomas, a thing may be demonstrated in one of two ways: through the causes (i.e. a priori) or through the effects (i.e. a posteriori). In particular, Thomas states, “When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause” (I Q. 2, art. 2 responsio). And, as generally accepted among Christian philosophers, God’s ways transcend the ways of average human beings, making not only God but His ways beyond our reasoning.
Consequently, in respect to God, we understand the effects of God far better than the causes, and through the effects one is still able to comprehend the thing in question. Therefore, Anselm’s method of a priori demonstration is unbefitting since the effects of God are better known, which means that a posteriori demonstration of God’s existence is the superior form of demonstration in this matter. Thomas not only discusses the two ways of demonstration but also utilizes them in order to create several arguments from a posteriori demonstration (e.g. First Mover, First Cause, et cetera).
Anselm’s argument with its a priori approach, forces the observer to posit knowledge of the Christian God to arrive at the conclusion sought by Anselm. Because the argument does not take into account the effects of God’s actions, one is unable to ascertain – through the argument alone – the traits of God such as His generosity, humility, et cetera. Yet, through an examination of God’s observable presence in the world, one may better understand God while at the same time observing the effects of humility, generosity, et cetera, which must be reciprocally applied to God.
Anselm’s argument as a purely a priori approach does not allow observers to conclude anything about God or even to conclude of the Christian God’s existence. Thomas further states that more than “philosophical science built up by human reason” is necessary for mankind’s salvation; namely sacred doctrine is necessary (I Q. 1, art. 1 responsio). Yet, Anselm’s ontological argument does not profess doctrinal matters but seeks to use only a philosophical approach. Boethius later affirms that God alone has true intelligence while humans only possess reason (Boethius 198). And because of man’s limitations, he is unable to understand theological truths and even arrive at the conclusion of God’s actual existence through a priori demonstration alone.
Thirdly, the third premise of Anselm’s ontological argument is called into question by the advent of Immanuel Kant, who stated that existence is not a property. One is unable to talk about something without presupposing its existence. In this way, existence is not like a color, shape, or characteristic, which can be applied to existing things. Simply put, without presupposing a substance’s existence, one is unable to discuss the substance at all. In this way, Kant’s argument that existence is not a property is supported. And, if existence is not a property, it is no greater to exist in reality than to exist in understanding alone. Therefore, assuming the truth of Kant’s initial claim, existing in reality is not greater than existing in understanding alone. And, if Kant’s argument is proven sound, the third premise of Anselm’s argument will be undoubtedly unsound. If Anselm is unable to prove that existing in reality is greater than existing in understanding, then his argument is ultimately unable to reach the conclusion that God exists in reality.
In summation, due to the questionability of Anselm’s definition of God, the less-than-adequate usage of a priori demonstration, and the notion that existence is not a property, Anselm’s ontological argument is revealed to be unsound.
Reply to Objection 1: While the Church confers the distinction of sainthood and Doctor of the Church only on non-heretics, the reception of these distinctions does not imply that the Church endorses the soundness of each of the philosopher’s premises. Unsound premises neither bar an individual from honors bestowed by the Church nor establish the individual as a heretic.
Reply to Objection 2: Objectors need to revise their arguments to consider theories such as the Atomist Theory. According to the theory, everything necessary consists of atoms, which can be neither created nor destroyed. As a result, atoms are by definition eternal, since they possess “…the simultaneous and complete possession of infinite life” (Boethius 199). Atoms necessarily exist. Therefore, something other than God can be considered as necessarily existing. And, if all physical things are composed of atoms, all physical things are in some sense eternal. Therefore, the Necessary Existent is not a special exception to the general rule, as Objection 2 would advocate.
Works Cited
- Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, via NewAdvent accessed May 2009.
- Beck, Lewis W. Eighteenth-Century Philosophy. New York: Free Press, 1966.
- Boethius, "The Consolation of Philosophy, Book V." Readings in Medieval Philosophy, Andrew B. Schoedinger. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Friday, March 9, 2012
The website of the Society recently posted these photos from Confirmations on the weekend of Septuagesima (February 5th). I happened to arrive at Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix that evening and did see Bishop Fellay the next morning.
These photos are from the SSPX. God bless those who have been confirmed and keep them in His grace!
.JPG)
.JPG)
Read more >>
These photos are from the SSPX. God bless those who have been confirmed and keep them in His grace!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Blessed saint Patrick, glorious Apostle of Ireland, who didst become a friend and father to me for ages before my birth, hear my prayer and accept, for God, the sentiments of gratitude and veneration with which my heart is filled. Through thee I have inherited that faith which is dearer than life. I now make thee the representative of my thanks, and the mediator of my homage to Almighty God.
Most holy Father and patron of my country, despise not my weakness; remember that the cries of little children were the sounds that rose, like a mysterious voice from heaven, and invited thee to come amongst us. Listen, then, to my humble supplication; may my prayer ascend to the throne of God, with the praises and blessings which shall ever sanctify thy name and thy memory.
May my hope be animated by the patronage and intercession of our forefathers, who now enjoy eternal bliss and owe their salvation, under God, to thy courage and charity. Obtain for me grace to love God with my whole heart, to serve him with my whole strength, and to persevere in good purposes to the end, o faithful shepherd of the Irish flock, who wouldst have laid down a thousand lives to save one soul, take my soul, and the souls of my countrymen, under thy special care.
Be a father to the Church of Ireland and her faithful people. Grant that all hearts may share the blessed fruits of that Gospel thou didst plant and water. Grant that, as our ancestors of old had learned, under thy guidance, to unite science with virtue, we too, may learn, under thy patronage, to consecrate all Christian duty to the glory of God. I commend to thee my native land, which was so dear to thee while on earth. Protect it still, and, above all, direct its chief pastors, particularly those who teach us.
Give them grace to walk in thy footsteps, to nurture the flock with the word of life and the bread of salvation, and to lead the heirs of the Saints thou hast formed to the possession of that glory which they, with Thee, enjoy in the kingdom of the Blessed: through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Amen.
V. Pray for us, O glorious saint Patrick.
R. And obtain for us the intention of this Novena.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Today is the Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is my Confirmation Patron as well as the patron of the University from which I earned my undergraduate degree.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the one who would not offer "fruits of the earth and work of human hands" An outcast because he offered what Our Lord instructed. He would not co operate with the condemned doctrine of ecumenism, he wanted to preserve the priesthood, and hold fast to tradition, as Our Lord God demanded.
Perhaps no one else in the modern Church has been more calumniated and despised than His Excellency, for the reason that he "delivered that which [he] also received" (cf 1 Cor 15:3). Michael Davies' "Apologia Pro Marcel" (available online) and "The Horn of the Unicorn" by Professor David Allen White each help illustrate an unbiased life of this man, who should be declared a saint of God.
I encourage all of you to read these two texts if you have been led to believe that Marcel Lefebvre was a "rebel", "excommunicated", or "disobedient."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
