It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:09 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
 Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
After Bishop Fellay expelled Fr. Meramo from the SSPX, the latter wrote this letter:
Spanish - http://www.meramo.net/AmigosdeMeramo/Ca ... respex.pdf
French - http://www.meramo.net/AmigosdeMeramo/Fr ... layExp.pdf

And Tradition in Action has kindly done an almost complete English translation, which despite being almost complete, they modestly describe as merely "the main excerpts" of the letter. You can read these "the main excerpts" here:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTop ... nReply.htm

Actually, the only thing I could see which was missing was this one section:
Quote:
Por si fuera poco, qué queda de la Fraternidad, de la resistencia ante el modernismo si se guarda, tiene, mantiene o acepta el 95% del nefasto y atípico Concilio Vaticano II, adogmático y por lo mismo, absurdo, como el concebir un círculo cuadrado o un triángulo bilátero, un matrimonio católico no indisoluble, pues como hace ver el teólogo dominico Marín Solá (sucesor en la cátedra del eminente teólogo tomista en Friburgo, el Padre Norberto del Prado): «Está revelado que “todo Concilio ecuménico es infalible”, o lo que es lo mismo, está revelado que “todo Concilio es infalible si es ecuménico”.» (La Evolución Homogénea del Dogma Católica, Marín Sola, ed. BAC, Madrid 1963, p. 435); libro elogiado en 1923 cuando apareció por el Cardenal Merry del Val, quien fue Secretario de Estado de San Pío X, para combatir la herejía modernista que pretendía una evolución transformista y heterodoxa del dogma católico, tal cual hoy la concibe Benedicto XVI cuando dijo siendo Cardenal que «pone en duda que haya un magisterio que sea permanente y definitivo en la Iglesia» que «ya no hay una verdad permanente en la Iglesia, verdades de Fe, dogmas en consecuencia, se acabaron los dogmas en la Iglesia, esto es radical. Evidentemente esto es herético, está claro, es horroroso, pero es así». Tal como lo aseveró Monseñor Lefebvre en una de sus últimas conferencias espirituales en Ecône del 8 y 9 de febrero de 1991, pues murió el 25 de marzo de 1991.
Pero claro, ahora es según Usted “magnánimo”, “valiente”, “paternal”, le inspira confianza, es conservador, y aún criticado por el ultraprogresismo como favorable a la Tradición, en resumen casi un tradicionalista ante el cual Usted va a Roma «casi corriendo» y lo admira con ingenua sonrisa como se puede apreciar en algunas fotografías en una de sus entrevistas, donde aparece también el Cardenal Castrillón Hoyos y que adjunto para más pruebas de su inopinado y comprometido proceder.


TIA summarised this as follows:
Quote:
What, then, remains of the SSPX, of resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle … [as theologian Marin Sola and Msgr. Lefebvre have proved].

Of course, asserting that Vatican II only pretended to be non-dogmatic is something which interests us, so let's see what it was that TIA thought it unnecessary to translate.

Quote:
What, then, remains of the SSPX resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle or a two-sided triangle, or a Catholic marriage that is not indissoluble; as the Dominican theologian Marin Sola (successor in the chair of theology of the eminent Thomist theologian in Freiburg, Father Norberto del Prado) teaches, "It is a revealed [truth] that 'any ecumenical council is infallible', or what amounts to the same, it is a revealed [truth] that 'any council is infallible while it is ecumenical' (La Evolución Homogénea del Dogma Católica, Marín Sola, ed. BAC, Madrid 1963, p. 435). This book, when it was published in 1923, was the object of praise from Cardinal Merry del Val, who had been Secretary of State of Saint Pius X. This book combats the modernist heresy of heterodox development of Catholic dogma which is exactly what Benedict XVI holds today, who when he was still Cardinal said that he "Doubts that there is any permanent and definitive teaching in the Church" to which Archbishop Lefebvre said, "there is no longer permanent truth in the Church of the truths of faith, of dogmas, therefore the dogmas of the Church are finished, it's radical. Obviously this is heretical, it is clear, it's horrible, but true." (Archbishop Lefebvre in one of his last spiritual lectures at Ecône 8 and February 9, 1991 - he died on March 25, 1991.)
Of course, now you think he is 'magnanimous', 'courageous', 'paternal', he inspires your trust, he is conservative and even criticized by the ultraprogressives as favorable to Tradition. In short almost a traditionalist to whom you go to Rome 'almost running', and you admire with an ingenuous smile, as can be seen in photographs taken during one of your interviews, and in which Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos also appears. I enclose as further evidence of your strange and compromising way of acting.


If anybody has Spanish or French and wishes to provide a better translation, please do. :)

It looks suspiciously like Mr. Guimaraes didn't feel like explaining this awkward text, so he just suppressed it. It is at best ironic to note that Mr. Guimaraes felt justified in making the following comment concerning Bishop Fellay in relation to the status of Vatican II: "His [Fellay's] affirmation that he recognized Vatican II 'as a historic fact' is quite insufficient and, if no further explanation is forthcoming, it can easily be qualified as deceitful and deceptive."

I think that Mr. Guimaraes might explain how omitting Fr. Meramo's passages above was not clearly deceptive and deceitful. Especially since he only omitted those passages and then characterised the remainder of the letter as merely "the main excerpts". He might also feel the need to explain how Archbishop's accusation of heresy against Ratzinger became in TIA's view a part of the proof (with Marin Sola's doctrine) that Vatican II's claim to non-dogmatic status is like squaring a circle. That is, "as theologian Marin Sola and Msgr. Lefebvre have proved."

I also hope that Mr. Guimaraes is able to remain coolly objective in his explanation, and not be like those he addresses thus: "I hope that the assessment I will make of the content of Bishop Fellay’s message will not wound the delicate sensibility of two ladies, who, like almost all ladies, put their emotions above their reason when it comes to defending the ones they love." :)

Now, does anybody have access to Marin Sola's manual? I'd like to see his treatment of the infallibility of councils!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
John Lane wrote:
After Bishop Fellay expelled Fr. Meramo from the SSPX, the latter wrote this letter:
Spanish - http://www.meramo.net/AmigosdeMeramo/Ca ... respex.pdf
French - http://www.meramo.net/AmigosdeMeramo/Fr ... layExp.pdf

Actually, the only thing I could see which was missing was this one section:
Quote:
Por si fuera poco, qué queda de la Fraternidad, de la resistencia ante el modernismo si se guarda, tiene, mantiene o acepta el 95% del nefasto y atípico Concilio Vaticano II, adogmático y por lo mismo, absurdo, como el concebir un círculo cuadrado o un triángulo bilátero, un matrimonio católico no indisoluble, pues como hace ver el teólogo dominico Marín Solá (sucesor en la cátedra del eminente teólogo tomista en Friburgo, el Padre Norberto del Prado): «Está revelado que “todo Concilio ecuménico es infalible”, o lo que es lo mismo, está revelado que “todo Concilio es infalible si es ecuménico”.» (La Evolución Homogénea del Dogma Católica, Marín Sola, ed. BAC, Madrid 1963, p. 435); libro elogiado en 1923 cuando apareció por el Cardenal Merry del Val, quien fue Secretario de Estado de San Pío X, para combatir la herejía modernista que pretendía una evolución transformista y heterodoxa del dogma católico, tal cual hoy la concibe Benedicto XVI cuando dijo siendo Cardenal que «pone en duda que haya un magisterio que sea permanente y definitivo en la Iglesia» que «ya no hay una verdad permanente en la Iglesia, verdades de Fe, dogmas en consecuencia, se acabaron los dogmas en la Iglesia, esto es radical. Evidentemente esto es herético, está claro, es horroroso, pero es así». Tal como lo aseveró Monseñor Lefebvre en una de sus últimas conferencias espirituales en Ecône del 8 y 9 de febrero de 1991, pues murió el 25 de marzo de 1991.
Pero claro, ahora es según Usted “magnánimo”, “valiente”, “paternal”, le inspira confianza, es conservador, y aún criticado por el ultraprogresismo como favorable a la Tradición, en resumen casi un tradicionalista ante el cual Usted va a Roma «casi corriendo» y lo admira con ingenua sonrisa como se puede apreciar en algunas fotografías en una de sus entrevistas, donde aparece también el Cardenal Castrillón Hoyos y que adjunto para más pruebas de su inopinado y comprometido proceder.


TIA summarised this as follows:
Quote:
What, then, remains of the SSPX, of resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle … [as theologian Marin Sola and Msgr. Lefebvre have proved].

Of course, asserting that Vatican II only pretended to be non-dogmatic is something which interests us, so let's see what it was that TIA thought it unnecessary to translate.

Quote:
What, then, remains of the SSPX resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle or a two-sided triangle, or a Catholic marriage that is not indissoluble; as the Dominican theologian Marin Sola (successor in the chair of theology of the eminent Thomist theologian in Freiburg, Father Norberto del Prado) teaches, "It is a revealed [truth] that 'any ecumenical council is infallible', or what amounts to the same, it is a revealed [truth] that 'any council is infallible while it is ecumenical' (La Evolución Homogénea del Dogma Católica, Marín Sola, ed. BAC, Madrid 1963, p. 435). This book, when it was published in 1923, was the object of praise from Cardinal Merry del Val, who had been Secretary of State of Saint Pius X. This book combats the modernist heresy of heterodox development of Catholic dogma which is exactly what Benedict XVI holds today, who when he was still Cardinal said that he "Doubts that there is any permanent and definitive teaching in the Church" to which Archbishop Lefebvre said, "there is no longer permanent truth in the Church of the truths of faith, of dogmas, therefore the dogmas of the Church are finished, it's radical. Obviously this is heretical, it is clear, it's horrible, but true." (Archbishop Lefebvre in one of his last spiritual lectures at Ecône 8 and February 9, 1991 - he died on March 25, 1991.)
Of course, now you think he is 'magnanimous', 'courageous', 'paternal', he inspires your trust, he is conservative and even criticized by the ultraprogressives as favorable to Tradition. In short almost a traditionalist to whom you go to Rome 'almost running', and you admire with an ingenuous smile, as can be seen in photographs taken during one of your interviews, and in which Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos also appears. I enclose as further evidence of your strange and compromising way of acting.


If anybody has Spanish or French and wishes to provide a better translation, please do. :)


I`m glad to see Fr Meramo quoted :) I met him like two years ago and he is an excellent priest. He resides now in Colombia.

I think the translation is not that bad is it?

Quote:
que «ya no hay una verdad permanente en la Iglesia, verdades de Fe, dogmas en consecuencia, se acabaron los dogmas en la Iglesia, esto es radical. Evidentemente esto es herético, está claro, es horroroso, pero es así»


Perhaps this part may be translated something like
Quote:
"there is no longer a permanent truth in the Church, there are no truths of faith (veritates fidei, not sure if you say so in English), and therefore dogmas, they are over, this is radical. This is evidently heretical; it is clear, it is horrifying, but it is true" (Msgr. Lefebvre`s words).


Quote:
Now, does anybody have access to Marin Sola's manual? I'd like to see his treatment of the infallibility of councils!


I have it, if course :) It is a very good book where he attacks, succesfully IMO, the so called ecclesiastical faith. I read it several years ago, so I`ll need to check. I think he deals with the infallibility of the councils when he talks about dogmatic facts. I may take some time though.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Last edited by Cristian Jacobo on Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Superb work John! When I saw the word "kindly" in your second paragraph, you kind of threw me off a bit. TIA is something isn't it?


Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
I think I found it:

http://gloria.tv/?media=129889


Attachments:
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG [ 180.32 KiB | Viewed 9555 times ]
Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Julian wrote:
I think I found it:


Yes you did! Do you read Spanish? Perhaps a translation of the whole paragraph 256 would be enough?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Yes you did! Do you read Spanish? Perhaps a translation of the whole paragraph 256 would be enough?


Not really, but I kind of get the idea :)

Yes, paragraph 256 would be enough, even though the next one on the Jansenistic propositions is interesting, too.


Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Julian wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Yes you did! Do you read Spanish? Perhaps a translation of the whole paragraph 256 would be enough?


Not really, but I kind of get the idea :)


:)

Quote:
Yes, paragraph 256 would be enough, even though the next one on the Jansenistic propositions is interesting, too.


Actually the whole section is very interesting. He covers all the dogmatic facts, even the infallibility of the canonizations and shows how and why all the dogmatic facts are defined fide divina.

Anyway, if someone may translate at least paragraph 256 that`d be great, if not I`ll try to do it some of these days.

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:00 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I think the translation is not that bad is it?

Well, I did it with Google Translate and a bit of guess-work, so if you think it isn't bad, that will do for me! :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Thank you, Julian, very much appreciated!

Lance, I sent Guimaraes a link to this page. I feel for Fr. Meramo, who I think acted justly and manfully, and I disagree with Bp. Fellay's approach. But I don't think it is just to accuse others, especially clerics, of dishonesty, unless it is impossible to interpret their actions in any other way, and in Fellay's case it is possible to think well of him so we must do so. I found the TIA behaviour in this matter particularly offensive given the standard of "honesty" they preach and hold others to.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Actually the whole section is very interesting. He covers all the dogmatic facts, even the infallibility of the canonizations and shows how and why all the dogmatic facts are defined fide divina.


Yes, this is an interesting controversy. You can see Garrigou's refutation of it in his Reality (I think!) which is online at that St. Thomas site I posted the link to in Books today. Also, read Fenton on the controversy - look for the article in the Texts section.

Also, see what St. Thomas says, “Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.” S. Th. II-II, Q. 11, Art 2, Resp. - he gives various references where he says "as stated above" also. The master!

Quote:
Anyway, if someone may translate at least paragraph 256 that`d be great, if not I`ll try to do it some of these days.

That would be good. But if not, don't worry, I'll extract the meaning OK I think. (But I'd much prefer a translation!). :)

Did I thank you for the one you sent via email? If not, my apology!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Actually the whole section is very interesting. He covers all the dogmatic facts, even the infallibility of the canonizations and shows how and why all the dogmatic facts are defined fide divina.


Yes, this is an interesting controversy. You can see Garrigou's refutation of it in his Reality (I think!) which is online at that St. Thomas site I posted the link to in Books today.


Garrigou is against ecclesiastical faith, right? Billot, instead defends it :(

Quote:
Also, read Fenton on the controversy - look for the article in the Texts section.


I read that issue several years ago. It is very good. Did you know that before that article Fenton defended ecclesiastical faith?


Quote:
Also, see what St. Thomas says, “Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.” S. Th. II-II, Q. 11, Art 2, Resp. - he gives various references where he says "as stated above" also. The master!


Absolutely! There are several passages like this one!

Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, if someone may translate at least paragraph 256 that`d be great, if not I`ll try to do it some of these days.

That would be good. But if not, don't worry, I'll extract the meaning OK I think. (But I'd much prefer a translation!). :)


I`ll see if I may do it some of these days :)

Quote:
Did I thank you for the one you sent via email? If not, my apology!


:wink:

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Gee I am glad I assist at Mass with the CMRI :) ah, just couldn’t resist. :)


Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:22 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Gee I am glad I assist at Mass with the CMRI :) ah, just couldn’t resist. :)


:D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:22 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Julian wrote:
I think I found it:


Thanks Julian,

Well that's certainly an interesting explanation. It's a pity RJS disappeared when he was asked to begin answering specific points, because he would have found it particularly instructive to see how this very famous theologian, in a book praised by Cardinal Merry del Val, a book which was specifically anti-Modernist, states without qualifiation that general councils are infallible simply by virtue of being general (i.e. ecumenical).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:38 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Garrigou is against ecclesiastical faith, right? Billot, instead defends it :(


Actually, I was somewhat confused - Garrigou in the place I was thinking of writes about the related question of the definability of theological conclusions.

Quote:
I read that issue several years ago. It is very good. Did you know that before that article Fenton defended ecclesiastical faith?

No, but I guessed as much from his treatment of the matter in that article. Did he write specifically about this previously?

I should make clear to others who are not familiar with the point, that all theologians agree that the Church can teach theological conclusions infallibly, because in fact she does so. That much is indisputable. The task of the theologians is to explain this in search of greater understanding of what is being done by the Church in such cases. The precise question at issue is what kind of assent is given by a Catholic to such infallible doctrinal acts - is it divine and catholic faith, or is it "merely" ecclesiastical faith? This in turn depends upon the answer to the question, can the application of the principles of faith to concrete facts, and the doctrines drawn from one premise which is divine revelation and another which is a truth known by the light of reason, truly be considered as themselves divinely revealed? Marin-Sola says yes, they are implicit in the general principles revealed by Christ and preserved in the deposit of faith. Therefore these things are believed by Catholics with divine and Catholic faith. They are, in short, "of faith."

Garrigou (and I presume Billot) says no, these things are only virtually revealed, not truly implicit in the deposit of faith, and therefore the assent given them is an assent based upon the infallible assurance of the Church but not because they are themselves part of divine revelation. That is, Catholic faith (or "ecclesiastical faith"), not divine and Catholic faith.

Fenton < http://strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ec ... faith.html > examines the controversy as it was presented by two excellent theologians and he is clearly convinced by the arguments of both Martinez and Marin-Sola, and gives Marin-Sola's book particularly high praise. "Yet by far the most formidable work in this cause has been done by Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola. His book, L'evolutión homogéne du dogme catholique, which appeared in 1923, will undoubtedly rank as one of the outstanding theological monographs of the twentieth century."

But what I found particularly interesting and enlightening was Fenton's own contribution to the theological discussion, which was his explanation of the art of teaching and how it is conducted by the Church. This is simply a brilliant exposition, and if he had written nothing else it would justify his status as a very fine theologian indeed.

Of course, as usual, St. Thomas's comments on the question state definitively what is certain without getting entangled in what is not. Simply sublime.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:17 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Take a look at this for example:

Quote:
S. Th. I, Q. 32, Art. 4. Resp.

Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest.

So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
I read that issue several years ago. It is very good. Did you know that before that article Fenton defended ecclesiastical faith?

No, but I guessed as much from his treatment of the matter in that article. Did he write specifically about this previously?


No, he didn´t write specifically about it at all. The references are found in his "The doctrinal authority of Papal Encyclicals" I and II (1949)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=781
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=779

In the first document he says:
Quote:
It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica.


And in the second part:

Quote:
Thus it would seem that some teachings whose main claim to acceptance on the part of Catholics is to be found in the fact that they are stated in papal encyclicals would actually demand an assent higher than that which must be accorded to the content of the Church’s authentic but non-infallible magisterium. Such truths would demand the kind of assent usually designated in theology under the title of fides ecclesiastica.


And later on:

Quote:
It is quite probable that some of the teachings set forth on the authority of the various papal encyclicals are infallible statements of the Sovereign Pontiff, demanding the assent of the fides ecclesiastica



Quote:
I should make clear to others who are not familiar with the point, that all theologians agree that the Church can teach theological conclusions infallibly, because in fact she does so. That much is indisputable. The task of the theologians is to explain this in search of greater understanding of what is being done by the Church in such cases. The precise question at issue is what kind of assent is given by a Catholic to such infallible doctrinal acts - is it divine and catholic faith, or is it "merely" ecclesiastical faith? This in turn depends upon the answer to the question, can the application of the principles of faith to concrete facts, and the doctrines drawn from one premise which is divine revelation and another which is a truth known by the light of reason, truly be considered as themselves divinely revealed? Marin-Sola says yes, they are implicit in the general principles revealed by Christ and preserved in the deposit of faith. Therefore these things are believed by Catholics with divine and Catholic faith. They are, in short, "of faith."

Garrigou (and I presume Billot) says no, these things are only virtually revealed, not truly implicit in the deposit of faith, and therefore the assent given them is an assent based upon the infallible assurance of the Church but not because they are themselves part of divine revelation. That is, Catholic faith (or "ecclesiastical faith"), not divine and Catholic faith.


Good resume!

Quote:
But what I found particularly interesting and enlightening was Fenton's own contribution to the theological discussion, which was his explanation of the art of teaching and how it is conducted by the Church. This is simply a brilliant exposition, and if he had written nothing else it would justify his status as a very fine theologian indeed.


Absolutely! Fenton is unique. :D

Both Marin Solá and Bp Fidel Martinez argue that the so called ecclesiastical faith is something rather modern dating from Suarez (this is disputed by some authors) and Molina.

A good resume of the argument against ecclesiastical faith is given by Fenton quoting Beraza:

Quote:
Whatever is revealed by God can be believed by divine faith. But it is revealed by God that the judgment of the Church, defining anything by its supreme doctrinal authority, is infallibly true. Therefore the judgment of the Church, thus defining something to be infallibly true, can be believed with divine faith.5

Fr. Beraza gave an exceptionally clear explanation of this process of reasoning. He taught that

The man who believes that the Church's judgment is true believes also that the object of that judgment is exactly what the Church judges it to be. For, to believe the Church's judgment to be true is the same thing as to believe that the object of the judgment is as it is represented in the judgment. If therefore you believe with divine faith that the judgment of the Church, here and now defining something, is infallibly true; by that same faith you would necessarily believe that the object of that judgment is exactly as it is asserted to be in that judgment by the Church.

Thus if you should believe by divine faith that the judgment of the Church defining the fact that the famous five propositions of Jansenius are really contained in Jansenius' book is infallibly true; you could not fail to believe in the same act of faith that those five propositions of Jansenius are contained in Jansenius' book. For a true judgment, as true essentially includes the object and its conformity with the judgment.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:35 pm
Posts: 32
Location: U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Hello to all. I am new to the forums as an active user, having decided to join since I've enjoyed it so much over the years as a 'guest.' Also, I felt that I could offer the below to you.

I have a rough but fairly accurate translation of paragraph 256 from Marin-Sola's text. Although there may be more proper word choices for such a text, I hope this will convey the meaning you need:

Quote:
256.- CONDITIONAL PROPOSITIONS.- To determine with clarity that the specific propositions are but a mere explication or application of the universal revealed proposition, we have only to examine the nature or meaning of the universal ones. These are conditional universal propositions. The universal proposition that “all ecumenical Councils are based on faith” means that “all Councils are based on faith if they are ecumenical.” Thus, it is clear that any Council, for example, the Tridentine Council, was not held for many centuries after the Apostles or after the revealed truth was affirmed; but it is not less clear that before the revealed truth was affirmed, and in the time of the Apostles, it was already truly revealed “that any Council, for example, the Tridentine Council, was based on faith if it was ecumenical.” Only by purifying or infallibly realizing this condition does the conditional proposition that “it is revealed that the Tridentine Council is based on faith if it is ecumenical” become an absolute proposition: “It is revealed that the Tridentine Council is based on faith.”

Therefore, without any new revelation, and only by purifying or verifying a condition, may any specific propositions contained in a universal or conditional proposition come to be an article of divine faith, unless infallibility is present for verifying or purifying the condition, as there is in the Church, according to all theologists.

At the risk of focusing too much on tangents or moot points, let us subject the previous observations to the reasoning process, because once this is clearly understood it becomes easier to understand the nature of all truly dogmatic facts. The reasoning process is as follows:

It is revealed that “all ecumenical Councils are infallible,” or the equivalent – i.e., it is revealed that “all Councils are infallible if they are ecumenical.”

Therefore, such a Council is certainly ecumenical;

Therefore, such a Council is infallible.

The reader should take note of the conclusion, which is precisely the point of fact we are discussing, so that he will clearly see that it is not but a particular case of the revealed universal major; the only difference is that the condition has disappeared. If the reader also takes note of the minor, he will see that nothing doctrinal of the major has been added to or taken away from the minor; only the condition is verified or purified.

Therefore, the minor is involved in the reasoning process as a formal reason per se or as grounds for the conclusion but simply functions as a condition. Now, then, it is common doctrine among theologists that when in the reasoning process the minor is not involved as a formal reason but as a simple condition for explaining or applying the revealed major, the conclusion is also a definable revelation of divine faith. This is why theologists commonly accept that the Church may establish as an article of divine faith, not only of ecclesiastical faith, that such a Council – the Vatican Council, for example – is infallible; or that such a Pope – the current Pope, for example – is the true Pope.”


Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Fr. Meramo's Letter to Bishop Fellay
Larie wrote:
Hello to all. I am new to the forums as an active user, having decided to join since I've enjoyed it so much over the years as a 'guest.' Also, I felt that I could offer the below to you.

I have a rough but fairly accurate translation of paragraph 256 from Marin-Sola's text. Although there may be more proper word choices for such a text, I hope this will convey the meaning you need:

Quote:
256.- CONDITIONAL PROPOSITIONS.- To determine with clarity that the specific propositions are but a mere explication or application of the universal revealed proposition, we have only to examine the nature or meaning of the universal ones. These are conditional universal propositions. The universal proposition that “all ecumenical Councils are based on faith” means that “all Councils are based on faith if they are ecumenical.” Thus, it is clear that any Council, for example, the Tridentine Council, was not held for many centuries after the Apostles or after the revealed truth was affirmed; but it is not less clear that before the revealed truth was affirmed, and in the time of the Apostles, it was already truly revealed “that any Council, for example, the Tridentine Council, was based on faith if it was ecumenical.” Only by purifying or infallibly realizing this condition does the conditional proposition that “it is revealed that the Tridentine Council is based on faith if it is ecumenical” become an absolute proposition: “It is revealed that the Tridentine Council is based on faith.”

Therefore, without any new revelation, and only by purifying or verifying a condition, may any specific propositions contained in a universal or conditional proposition come to be an article of divine faith, unless infallibility is present for verifying or purifying the condition, as there is in the Church, according to all theologists.

At the risk of focusing too much on tangents or moot points, let us subject the previous observations to the reasoning process, because once this is clearly understood it becomes easier to understand the nature of all truly dogmatic facts. The reasoning process is as follows:

It is revealed that “all ecumenical Councils are infallible,” or the equivalent – i.e., it is revealed that “all Councils are infallible if they are ecumenical.”

Therefore, such a Council is certainly ecumenical;

Therefore, such a Council is infallible.

The reader should take note of the conclusion, which is precisely the point of fact we are discussing, so that he will clearly see that it is not but a particular case of the revealed universal major; the only difference is that the condition has disappeared. If the reader also takes note of the minor, he will see that nothing doctrinal of the major has been added to or taken away from the minor; only the condition is verified or purified.

Therefore, the minor is involved in the reasoning process as a formal reason per se or as grounds for the conclusion but simply functions as a condition. Now, then, it is common doctrine among theologists that when in the reasoning process the minor is not involved as a formal reason but as a simple condition for explaining or applying the revealed major, the conclusion is also a definable revelation of divine faith. This is why theologists commonly accept that the Church may establish as an article of divine faith, not only of ecclesiastical faith, that such a Council – the Vatican Council, for example – is infallible; or that such a Pope – the current Pope, for example – is the true Pope.”



Hello Larie! Thanks a lot for the tranlsation. I`d like to make just 2 comments on it. I hope you don`t mind.

1) You have translated "regla de fe" (regula fidei) as "based on faith" which I`m not sure it is the same as "rule of faith" which is the literal translation and also a technical term. Maybe you say "based on faith" as well in English and if that is the case I apologize :)

2)
Quote:
Therefore, the minor is not involved in the reasoning process as a formal reason per se or as grounds for the conclusion but simply functions as a condition


You forgot "not" :)

Other than this the translation is perfect :)

Thanks again!

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.