Schism or Romanism?

Jason has responded to my reply.

<< But unless his [Jaki’s] book was intended for Catechesis, there is no obligation to submit it for an imprimatur. >>

That may well be true, but you are changing the subject. What you originally said, and what I was responding to, was the following:

<< Perhaps you should take a look at the first page of Scott Hahn's (and most other Catholic apologist's) books. They are usually submitted to the local Bishop for an imprimatur (an official review and declaration of its suitability insofar as Catholic doctrine goes). >>

Whether they are “usually” submitted to the local bishop, and whether there is an “obligation” to do so are two very different things.

Indeed, you have now drawn the circle so narrowly that it is unclear that any book by a lay apologist would “bear on the formal education of the faithful, in the context of parish life (eg, textbooks)” or “catechesis.”

So instead of saying that such books are ordinarily submitted to the local bishop for the imprimatur, you now seem to be saying that such book are not ordinarily submitted to the local bishop for the imprimatur. Which is it?

<< It seems you're throwing out the term "schismatic" in a sense which you define, rather than the sense it is given in Catholic theology. >>

Three comments:

1.I am, indeed, using “schism” in an informal sense. That is already clear from how I’ve qualified my own usage: as when I speak of an “inner” schism, not to mention my lengthier distinction: “There’s quite a difference between a group which pays lip-service to the magisterium while going its own way, and one that publicly defies the magisterium. My allegation is that Armstrong is schismatic in the first sense, not the second.”

So all your criticism amounts to is that I’m not using the word the way you do. Granted. That does not affect my allegation.

2. I’d add that even in Catholic moral theology, intentions make a difference. For example, wrong intentions can invalidate a sacramental action. So even if outward conformity is preserved, impediments may remain.

Vatican II says the following:
“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledge with respect, an d sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention…” (Lumen Gentium 25).

“Loyal submission of will and intellect,” “sincere assent.”

3. It isn’t clear to me, even on your own terms, that “schism” has a “very precise meaning.”

For example, Ralph McInery quotes, with evident approval, the statement of Brent Bozell that “anyone who refuses submission to an authoritative teaching by the supreme pontiff on Faith and morals is a schismatic”; “If they will not do this, they should cease pretending to represent the Catholic Church. Otherwise, they will be personally responsible for widening the schism and increasing the scandal,” What Went Wrong with Vatican II (Sophia 1998), 80.

Notice that he is not talking about people who have either been excommunicated (passive schism), or formally broken ties with Rome (active schism). They are merely insubordinate.

To take another example, when Trent anathematized the Protestants, it thereby branded them as schismatics. Yet Vatican II speaks of Protestants who, although they lack the “fullness of unity,” yet are capable of being in “communion with Christ” (Unitatis redintegratio 22).

So the usage and concept of schism in Catholic parlance doesn’t seem to be as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.

<< Armstrong's work is not created for catechesis in his parish. It is a private initiative. He has no obligation to submit it to a Bishop for an imprimatur. If he did (and I don't think writings on the Internet would even be eligible) he would receive an imprimatur without a problem. >>

Now you’re moving the goal-post. Remember what you said before? “Perhaps you should take a look at the first page of Scott Hahn's (and most other Catholic apologist's) books. They are usually submitted to the local Bishop for an imprimatur…”

Now you’ve gone from “most other Catholic apologists submit it to the local bishop” to “he has no obligation to submit it to the local bishop…and writings on the Internet wouldn’t even be eligible.”

<< The PBC has no magisterial authority, and so merely criticizing something it wrote would be no problem. Ratzinger, as a Cardina, certainly had no magisterial authority in his forward. >>

<< Your charges of quasi-schism have to be demonstrated with hard evidence. Theological disagreements with people in high places doesn't qualify for schism. The authentic magisterium of the Church is not to be confused with personal opinions. >>

The problem here is what would ever count as “hard” evidence for the “authentic” voice of the magisterium. That has been a problem all along.

Can you point me to a cumulative index of the “authentic” magisterium? Or does a Catholic have to sift through all the raw data himself and size up their relative authority?

If so, he is having to authenticate the church’s teaching rather than having the church authenticate his own teaching—in which case we’re back to the right of private judgment.

We Evangelicals have a cumulative index. It’s called the Bible. The cut-off point was 2000 years ago. We don’t have to distinguish between fallible and infallible, prudential and magisterial.