It is currently Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:33 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 
 The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
In the light of Fr. Cekada's decision to adopt a heresy as part of his explanation of the crisis, I am prompted to put together some notes on the key features of the crisis and assign to each of them the possible solutions, along with degrees of certitude for each potential solution.

Feel free to contribute, being as precise as possible.

First, some basic factual data:

1. The texts of Vatican II contain error and even heresy.

2. These errors and heresies are contrary to infallible decrees of the Church.

3. Vatican II was promulgated by Paul VI and morally the entire hierarchy of the Church. There were no public and clear objections made to it when it was finally promulgated, by any of the bishops, and certainly not by a significant number of them.

4. The particular character of Vatican II was brought into some obscurity by the opening speech made by John XXIII (that it was to be "pastoral" rather than "dogmatic") and by the parallel comments of Paul VI.

5. Paul VI taught error to the entire Church, as pope, in his promulgation of the decrees of Vatican II and by various other public instruments.

6. John XXIII and Paul VI ceased to apply the disciplinary power of the Church to those who needed correction. Doctrinal disorder grew rank; even those previously censured by the Church for promoting unsound theories were rehabilitated and even honoured. In 1965, the Holy Office was dismantled, to be replaced by a new congregation (for the Doctrine of the Faith) whose purpose would be, among other objects, to “encourage doctrinal initiative.” A few months afterwards the Index of Forbidden Books was abrogated.

7. Faith, which is the foundation of the Church, the first of her bonds of unity, and which consists in the supernaturally aided assent of the mind to truths preached authoritatively by the Church, was made to appear optional. The Church to all appearances ceased preaching as one having authority. It appeared that she had ceased to command acceptance of her doctrines.

8. Paul VI didn't believe in authority infallibly declaring truth so that the subject is obliged to receive this truth under pain of damnation. He believed that "truth recommends itself" etc.

9. Paul VI promulgated a new liturgy which was concocted with the assistance of Protestants, was acceptable to Protestants once completed, and which does not express the Catholic faith.

10. Resistance to the new liturgy and the new doctrines and practices was disallowed and even persecuted with "legal" methods.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:52 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Preliminary comments.

I think the following propositions will find general agreement.

All are obliged to maintain whatever the Church has already taught.

All are obliged to reject novelties which are incompatible with what has already been received.

The Church's members have a strict right to the goods of the Church (assuming they fulfil the requirements for approaching them in each concrete case - state of grace, proper intention, etc.).

It seems that it was possible, even common, for bishops to accede to the texts of Vatican II without thereby being guilty of heresy, and a fortiori, without thereby disappearing into heresy (i.e. leaving the Church).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Theological truths.

1. All of the words and actions of Paul VI which suggested that the truth was no longer being imposed as a law, gave concrete expression to his heretical idea that the truth may only recommend itself, and must not be enforced in any way by authority. Dignitatis Humanae expressed this succinctly: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” This heresy was also taught by the Synod of Pistoia, and condemned by Pope Pius VI, in his Constitution, Auctorum fidei: “The proposition affirming, ‘that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love’; and then also, ‘that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees’; in so far as by those undefined words, ‘extends to exterior matters,’ the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline – heretical.”

And also: “In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church ‘does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments’ leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.”

2. The entire hierarchy cannot teach error. That is, the ordinary, universal magisterium, is infallible.

3. The entire hierarchy cannot cease to exist in act. Not all of the bishops can leave the Church, nor can all of them die, so as to leave none remaining.

4. The Church is indefectible. That is, she must continue to exist at every moment in time, with the same essential features she was given by our Lord when He founded her.

5. The Church is a visible unity. This unity is threefold - two external bonds, of faith and charity, and one principle of unity, her hierarchy united under the Roman Pontiff.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Dear John,

you make very interesting considerations. I share the great part of them.

Only some fast thoughts.

1. It seems to me a little bit contradictory to say that "John XXIII and Paul VI ceased to apply the disciplinary power of the Church to those who needed correction" and that conciliar church " has ceased to command acceptance of her doctrines" and, at the same time, to say that "Resistance to the new liturgy and the new doctrines and practices was disallowed and even persecuted with "legal" methods".

2. Conciliar "Popes" and congregations have clearly enjoined to obey to the disobedients (for exemple Bp. Lefebvre and others), pubblicly and privately. I have already posted some Letters of Paul VI and John Paul II to Lefebvre. Here I offer another example in matter of Liturgy (the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae to all the Church by Paul VI):

"C’est au nom de la Tradition que nous demandons à tous nos fils, à toutes les communautés catholiques, de célébrer, en dignité et ferveur, la Liturgie réformée. L’adoption du nouvel Ordo Missæ n’est pas laissée certes à l’arbitraire des prêtres ou des fidèles : et l’instruction du 14 juin 1971 n’a prévu la célébration de la Messe dans l’ancienne forme, avec l’autorisation de l’ordinaire, que pour des prêtres âgés ou malades qui offrent le Divin Sacrifice sine populo. Le nouvel Ordo a été promulgué pour se substituer à l’ancien, après mûre délibération, suite aux instances du Concile Vatican II. Ce n’est pas différemment que notre saint Prédécesseur Pie V avait rendu obligatoire le Missel réformé sous son autorité, suite au Concile de Trente.
Nous exigeons la même disponibilité, avec la même autorité suprême qui nous vient de Jésus-Christ, envers toutes les autres réformes liturgiques, disciplinaires, pastorales, préparées ces années en application des décrets conciliaires"
(Discours de Paul VI lors du Consistoire du 24 mai 1976).

3. It is correct what you quote about the Declaration on Religious freedom. But in the closure of Dignitatis Humanae Paul VI says also:

"Tout l’ensemble et chacun des points qui ont été édictés dans cette déclaration ont plu aux Pères du Concile. Et Nous, en vertu du pouvoir apostolique que Nous tenons du Christ, en union avec les vénérables Pères, Nous les approuvons, arrêtons et décrétons dans le Saint-Esprit, et Nous ordonnons que ce qui a été ainsi établi en Concile soit promulgué pour la gloire de Dieu" (See: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... ae_fr.html).

Here is clear that Paul VI teaches authoritatively, committing all his authority.

4. In general, it seems to me that for you a doctrine is infallible only if, next to that doctrine, there is a penalty for those who deny that doctrine. In other terms, it seems to me that for you a doctrine is not binding and not infallible if the Church does not put a sanction next to the doctrine. I think in this way you wrongly mix the power of Magisterium (of the Pope or of the Church) with the Judiciary power (always of the pope or of the Church). Normally, we distinguish two power in the Church: the power of Order and the power of Jurisdiction. The latter includes: the power of Magisterium, the power of Govern, and the Judiciary power.
Now, the power of Magisterium is distinct from the Judiciary power. For this reason, there is no need that, for to make infallible or binding a certain teaching, the Church puts a sanction for the violators. The teaching of the Church, when it concerns faith or moral, is infallible per se. We are already obliged to believe.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Dear Gabriele,

Gabriele wrote:
1. It seems to me a little bit contradictory to say that "John XXIII and Paul VI ceased to apply the disciplinary power of the Church to those who needed correction" and that conciliar church " has ceased to command acceptance of her doctrines" and, at the same time, to say that "Resistance to the new liturgy and the new doctrines and practices was disallowed and even persecuted with "legal" methods".


Yes, of course, we must be precise, and the apparent contradiction will disappear.

I mean that the Conciliar church does not impose its doctrine or its practices under pain of sin and sanction as the Catholic Church does.

Their whole approach is arbitrary and tyrannous, not authoritative, because they don't believe in authority as such. Look in detail at the means by which the condemnation of Econe was conducted. Totally without process, natural justice, honesty, or consistency. A travesty of legality, but using legal forms of language. Likewise with doctrine. More below.

Gabriele wrote:
2. Conciliar "Popes" and congregations have clearly enjoined to obey to the disobedients (for exemple Bp. Lefebvre and others), pubblicly and privately. I have already posted some Letters of Paul VI and John Paul II to Lefebvre. Here I offer another example in matter of Liturgy (the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae to all the Church by Paul VI):

"C’est au nom de la Tradition que nous demandons à tous nos fils, à toutes les communautés catholiques, de célébrer, en dignité et ferveur, la Liturgie réformée. L’adoption du nouvel Ordo Missæ n’est pas laissée certes à l’arbitraire des prêtres ou des fidèles : et l’instruction du 14 juin 1971 n’a prévu la célébration de la Messe dans l’ancienne forme, avec l’autorisation de l’ordinaire, que pour des prêtres âgés ou malades qui offrent le Divin Sacrifice sine populo. Le nouvel Ordo a été promulgué pour se substituer à l’ancien, après mûre délibération, suite aux instances du Concile Vatican II. Ce n’est pas différemment que notre saint Prédécesseur Pie V avait rendu obligatoire le Missel réformé sous son autorité, suite au Concile de Trente.
Nous exigeons la même disponibilité, avec la même autorité suprême qui nous vient de Jésus-Christ, envers toutes les autres réformes liturgiques, disciplinaires, pastorales, préparées ces années en application des décrets conciliaires"
(Discours de Paul VI lors du Consistoire du 24 mai 1976).


This proves my point. Does he refer us explicitly to a bull equivalent to Quo Primum? No, because there isn't one. Instead, he does the following:

1. Asserts that the adoption of the New Mass is not a free choice of the clergy. This is an assertion of fact, not an order.

2. Asserts that the promulgation of the New Mass was meant to replace the true Mass. This is an assertion of fact, not an order. No proof is offered for it. It is meant, it seems, to prove #1 above, which it cannot do, since it is merely an ipse dixit.

3. Asserts that the New Mass was promulgated in accord with the authority of Vatican II. This is an assertion of fact, not an order. No proof is offered for it.

4. Asserts that the promulgation of the New Mass was identical in essence to the act of St. Pius V in Quo Primum. No proof is offered for this assertion, and it invites a comparison of the respective documents, which reveals that St. Pius V did make a law, binding on virtually the entire Latin Church, and carrying sanctions for disobedience; Paul VI did not make a law, did not assert that it was binding, did not name whom it bound, and did not attach any sanctions. He offered it to the Church, by having it published. That was the essence of his act.

Just in case this is not clear, Paul VI did not legislate any obligation to use the New Missal, nor did he promulgate any legislation affecting the existing law on the Missal (chiefly contained in Quo Primum). Therefore that law is still the law of the Church, and the New Mass is forbidden. The document of Paul VI supposedly "promulgating" the New Mass (laws are promulgated, not missals or liturgies) actually neither commands nor permits anyone to do anything. Read it for yourself. It's just a rhetorical work full of lies and deception, such as that the New Mass is superior, reflects the true faith, and is a witness to unbroken tradition (!). The only thing it orders is that the new Missal be published.

5. Mentions his purported authority and demands that whatever he says be accepted. Since he has not formally commanded anything by promulgating any law in this matter, he is merely demanding that his lies, listed above, be accepted, like Idi Amin or Joseph Stalin.

Gabriele wrote:
3. It is correct what you quote about the Declaration on Religious freedom. But in the closure of Dignitatis Humanae Paul VI says also:

"Tout l’ensemble et chacun des points qui ont été édictés dans cette déclaration ont plu aux Pères du Concile. Et Nous, en vertu du pouvoir apostolique que Nous tenons du Christ, en union avec les vénérables Pères, Nous les approuvons, arrêtons et décrétons dans le Saint-Esprit, et Nous ordonnons que ce qui a été ainsi établi en Concile soit promulgué pour la gloire de Dieu" (See: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... ae_fr.html).

Here is clear that Paul VI teaches authoritatively, committing all his authority.


No, he doesn't. He orders this doctrine to be published, after commenting that it has pleased everybody (it didn't, as he knew - he lied).

At Vatican I Pius IX and the whole episcopal college said the following (for example):

Quote:
But now it is our purpose to profess and declare from this chair of Peter before all eyes the saving teaching of Christ, and, by the power given us by God, to reject and condemn the contrary errors.

This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Ghost by our authority in this ecumenical council
...
The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, ... He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, ...
...
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds,
...
it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
...
Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
...
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
...
This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock. [The anathemas follow.]
...
We teach and declare that, ...


Now, have another look at what Paul VI said at Vatican II. Did he say anybody is bound by this doctrine? No. Did he say that anybody "must hold" it? No. Did he say that it is forbidden to reject it? No. He just says that he, along with the the members of the Council, believe it and he uses all of his purported authority to order it published. Thanks for that, John-Baptist Montini. Thanks for giving us the opinions held by you and your mates.

Gabriele wrote:
4. In general, it seems to me that for you a doctrine is infallible only if, next to that doctrine, there is a penalty for those who deny that doctrine. In other terms, it seems to me that for you a doctrine is not binding and not infallible if the Church does not put a sanction next to the doctrine. I think in this way you wrongly mix the power of Magisterium (of the Pope or of the Church) with the Judiciary power (always of the pope or of the Church). Normally, we distinguish two power in the Church: the power of Order and the power of Jurisdiction. The latter includes: the power of Magisterium, the power of Govern, and the Judiciary power.
Now, the power of Magisterium is distinct from the Judiciary power. For this reason, there is no need that, for to make infallible or binding a certain teaching, the Church puts a sanction for the violators. The teaching of the Church, when it concerns faith or moral, is infallible per se. We are already obliged to believe.


The penalty does not have to be explicit, must it must be clear that the subjects are bound to receive, hold, and profess, the doctrine, under pain of some sanction, even indeterminate.

Further, the debate amongst the theologians about whether the doctrinal power is part of the jurisdictional power is irrelevant. All agree that the Church teaches authoritatively, that is, her doctrine is imposed as law, not offered to men who are free to disregard it. Paul VI carefully avoided speaking in a way which would imply this clearly. You may think was an accident. Clearly it wasn't. So we must determine what it means.

See above for the examples from Vatican I which illustrate the counter-principle, the principle of the Catholic Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 am
Posts: 55
Location: California, USA
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John, how did Fr. Cekada adopt a heresy to explain the crisis? Does this have to do with his stance on una cum Masses?


Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:25 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Phillip, I have no idea. I asked him many questions in the debate over it, but he declined to answer any of them.

Clearly he doesn't wish to expose his thinking in public. Perhaps somebody who has learned his doctrine privately, where he has been teaching it for over a decade, can tell us what his thinking is.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:10 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
From IA (re. what is my own "Thesis"?):

My thesis is probably not very different from yours or any other traditional Catholic’s, with the exception of the validity of the claims of the Conciliar popes. The Church is the Church, she is where she has always been, and any person baptised within her remains a member until and unless he departs from her (i.e. by manifest heresy, schism, or apostasy).

Where I might and probably do differ with you is that I would probably judge a greater number of men to be heretics and therefore no longer Catholics, than you would. But Archbishop Lefebvre said that most of the French bishops were not Catholics almost thirty years ago, so I’m not sure that people who disagree with me are not equally disagreeing with him. In fact, I’m confident that they are disagreeing with him, but that’s a separate issue.

Fr. Cekada seems to have some universal principle, which despite questioning he would not reveal, according to which all of the apparent residential bishops are actually outside the Church. I don’t have any such principle. For this reason he imagines that the bishops of the Church that I insist must still exist are “in the woods” somewhere. This is a complete misconception. I have said that, but he won’t accept it. I don’t know why. But you should see that “Bishop in the woods” is really about the least appropriate title one could invent for what I am describing.

If you want to understand my view a little better, read this article: strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdf

Quote:
1. In Van Noort's quote it states that the Teaching Body consists solely of those with ordinary jurisdiction derived of legitimate authority. Does such a statement exclude the application of Supplied Jurisdiction, and if it does would that not defeat the purpose of Supplied Jurisdiction in the first place?


Supplied jurisdiction validates certain acts, in particular circumstances, that would otherwise be invalid for want of jurisdiction. The classic case is confession, either in danger of death or in the circumstance of common error.

No author I have seen treats the act of teaching as something which could or would attract supplied jurisdiction.

Van Noort’s doctrine is absolutely the universal doctrine of the theologians. The Church was founded by Our Lord upon the Apostles. Their mission was to preach the gospel, baptise, and then govern and sanctify the body of the faithful. They appointed successors, the residential bishops. The Church from the very beginning, therefore, was constituted of geographically circumscribed communities of the baptised, subject to bishops, and those bishops were subject to Peter. That is what the Church is, and always will be. Bishops with territorial jurisdiction are fundamental, in the full sense of that term. Without them, you don’t have the Catholic Church.

There are so many aspects of this that it is hard even to list them. Sacred doctrine is unitary – every aspect impacts on multiple other aspects, so that an error in one point can and usually does lead to manifold errors elsewhere. I’ll try and point out a few of the more obvious implications for sacred doctrine if we posit a Church without any remaining bishops.

1. The faith is promulgated as a law by the Church. It is binding on all, but especially on the baptised, who have made promises to keep the law. The bishops are not merely witnesses of the truth, they are authoritative witnesses. I emphasise this not because I want to highlight additional difficulties which might now occur to you (and there are several), but to bring to prominence the fact that this authoritative preaching activity is essential to the faith itself. It’s not merely some convenient means that Our Lord chose to bring His doctrine to all men in every age – it is that – but it also reminds us that His doctrine is not optional. It’s a law. Now, to put this into concrete terms, you are under no legal obligation to receive what I write, or Fr. Cekada writes, or Bishop Dolan writes, or what any Fraternity priest or bishops writes, because none of us has a canonical mission. We’re not sent by the Church. We are informal witnesses of what we have received. That’s it. But your residential bishop, your ordinary, if you have one, does oblige you, under pain of sin and censure, to receive what he teaches. You’re not free to disregard it. Don’t confuse this with our right and duty to reject error. The two concepts are quite distinct. We cannot receive error, precisely because we are already bound to hold fast to what we have received before. But in the absence of a conflict, we are indeed obliged to receive the authoritative preaching of the Church’s official teachers, the bishops, with a docile and attentive heart. So without bishops, the faith cannot be preached as it is meant to be preached – that is, with authority (just as Our Lord spoke “as one having authority”). But that’s the first purpose of the Church. Ergo.

2. The Church is indefectible in all of her essential notes, properties, and marks. Her constitution cannot change in any essential matter. Bishops are part of her constitution, what she is, by definition. Ergo.

3. The Church is apostolic. She traces her mission or authority, her doctrine, and her worship, back to the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession. Her bishops are the successors of the Apostles. There have been no lacunae in this succession, and there can be none in future. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it: “No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative.”

4. The Church is numerically one, that is, she is the very same body established by Our Lord. Her membership has changed, obviously, persons succeeding persons as men die and others are baptised, but the mystical body remains the same entity. If some essential aspect of the Church were to be lost, for a period, then even if it were recovered, the entity which emerged from the restoration would not be numerically the same entity that existed previously. It would be a new church, perhaps (hypothetically) identical to the true Church, but it would not actually be that Church.

5. The entire Teaching Body cannot teach error, because the ordinary, universal teaching office is infallible. If all of the bishops taught error, then the Church would no longer be the pillar and ground of truth, but rather a cesspit of confusion and lies. But to posit that all of the bishops could have disappeared into heresy (not merely error) and therefore lost their offices would, a fortiori be to suggest that they all erred. But this is inadmissible.

Believe it or not, there are many more aspects of revealed truth which this notion of no remaining bishops would disastrously affect, but these are probably the principle ones, and they should suffice to make the point that the notion itself must be rejected by all Christians.

Quote:
2. As an SV, what do you consider constitutes the visible Church, would it be that one theoretical NO bishop who holds Ordinary Jurisdiction who isn't a heretic? If so, can we actually consider him to be the Visible Church if no one knows who he is and he in fact is not visible to the faithful? Would he also be considered Van Noort's "collective Teaching Body," the sole legitimate successor of the Apostles?


The visible Church is the only Church. There is no invisible Church. It consists of the faithful, the bishops, and the Roman Pontiff, when there is one. I hope, but I cannot verify, that many of the bishops that are currently enmeshed in the Conciliar church are still Catholics and therefore do really have the office of ordinary of their respective dioceses.

The faithful, without explaining all of the principles and judgements by which this is arrived at, are chiefly the traditional Catholics, along with whoever remains a Catholic in the Conciliar milieu. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, these are fewer and fewer, because the Novus Ordo tends to destroy the virtue of faith, and the longer they stay there, the less hope there is for them.

So yes, the bishops with jurisdiction are key parts of the visible Church, but so are the faithful united to them by the external bonds of faith and charity.

Quote:
3. In the event that Supplied Jurisdiction is excluded (from point one), and there is no conversion of Rome in the near future, would that not lead to a situation wherein sometime in the very near future we would be looking at the end of the Church, because all those who had Ordinary Jurisdiction and were not heretics died off? Or is this a situation where you would say that because the theological principle is that there must exist at least one NO bishop with Ordinary Jursidiction, not a heretic, than there must always be one (we will assume there will always be at least one who converts to tradition)?


Well, the Church won’t end, of course, but our knowledge of the factual data could be erroneous, and our judgements could be erroneous. What seems impossible to me, as I’ve said many times, is that the Catholic Church gave us Vatican II, the New Mass, the New Code, and all manner of other evils. The Church cannot do these things, just as she cannot be without bishops or indeed faithful members. This is the mystery of our era, the ecclesiological mystery.

Quote:
4. Is it possible that there would be a NO bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who does not say or allow the new mass in his diocese and that we would not have heard of him?


Yes. For example, in China there is a very obscure, but as far as we know, a very interesting situation. The Church there was really cut off from communication with the Vatican around the time of Vatican II, and the reforms were not implemented at all for decades. I would need to check my facts, but I have the impression that this situation persisted until the 1990s. Also, keep in mind that there is an authorised schismatic national church in China, and the true Church, which is underground and has been right through the crisis. The question is, is there a bishop or bishops there who maintain the true Mass and the true faith? As unlikely as it might seem, I think it possible. These people cannot come out into the open in China, but must remain concealed. This is especially true of the clergy. This doesn’t make them “invisible” in the sense that the theologians mean. They are perfectly visible to the other members of the Church in their locality. They are objectively visible, if obscure.

But as I asked Fr. Cekada to confirm, and he ignored it, Cardinal Siri remained a Catholic and he allowed the New Mass across his archdiocese. Is the act of saying, or approving for use, the New Mass incompatible per se with the faith, or is it possible that a man can do either of these things and remain a Catholic? I think the answer is that he can remain a Catholic, and we can cite examples, as I have done. Another class of clergy exists which also illustrate the principle: the priests who offered the New Mass for some time after it was introduced, and then ceased doing so. Nobody demanded an abjuration of error from them, and a profession of faith, to receive them back into the Church. Why? Because nobody thought that they had been non-Catholics merely because they accepted a new rite of mass apparently authorised by Rome.

Note that we must be precise with these things. This is a different question from whether it is lawful to offer or assist at the New Mass, and it is again a different question from whether the Church could truly have given us the New Mass.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
3. Or is this a situation where you would say that because the theological principle is that there must exist at least one NO bishop with Ordinary Jursidiction, not a heretic, than there must always be one (we will assume there will always be at least one who converts to tradition)?

John: I would have liked you to answer this statement in what I would consider a bit more precise manner: i.e., "...whether an NO "bishop", or a Bishop who has never been "in" the NO, but has kept himself and his flock separate from the NO in every way, there must be at least one in order for the Church to continue as She is and always has been."

I, with you, firmly believe that none of us knows enough to say who, or where, this bishop and his flock might be. However, we are absolutely certain such a bishop and his flock, or more than one, exists somewhere: we have Our Lord's assurances of this, and to us it is a fact. There is simply no possibility of argument about it.

I might also back up another point you have implied but not directly addressed: that is that the Church has always viewed Her sources of doctrine as one whole, and never as separated but at times possibly contradictory (which is impossible) parts. As an example, to the Catholic Church, the bible is one whole, from the first word in the Old Testament to the last word in the New, and nothing may be taken out of context and quoted all by itself without reference to other things there that might have a bearing on the subject at hand. This idea is directly opposed to how the generality of protestants view the bible, and this is why "...an infallible book, requires an infallible interpreter...".

Canon Law is another of those sources of doctrine: and it too is infallible, since it is a codification of the teaching office of the Church. This is why Cardinal Gasparri, in his preface to the 1917 Code, states very similar ideas: that every one of the various codes must be referred to every other that addresses the same or similar subject, and none may be quoted or used on its own without reference to those others.

Thank you for this thread, John. I have found it to be very useful in the present battle we are having.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:00 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Here's a section from "The Church Crucified" touching on dominative power vs jurisdiction.

It's relevant to the question of true and false obedience.

Quote:
In the Church there are two kinds of power, dominative and jurisdictional. The dominative power is the power to give direct orders to individual persons. This is the power that a father has in his family, and a religious superior (as a result of the vow of obedience) has over his subjects. Jurisdictional power, on the other hand, is the power to establish general laws and to judge and punish in accordance with them, and to dispose all of the goods of the Church, including jurisdiction itself, to best effect. This is the kind of power that the pope and the bishops have over the flock. To put the point in very succinct form, even the pope has no power to order a person to perform some particular act, merely by virtue of that person’s membership in the Church. He would need some other “title” to make such a command binding, such as if the subject were a Jesuit (with a special vow of obedience to the pope) or one of the pope’s officers (e.g. a curial cardinal), or a member of the papal household. Another title to obedience would arise in the unlikely event that the pope heard the confession of another, and therefore imposed a penance.

Obedience to the pope, for the average Catholic, means submission to the general laws of the Church. If the pope ordered you personally to go on pilgrimage to Compostella or Auriesville, you could politely decline without sin. Because he simply would not possess the right to make such a command, which would be an exercise of dominative power. On the other hand, if he ordered that all Catholics are to make a pilgrimage to a major shrine once every ten years, this would be incorporated in the Code and it would oblige every Catholic. The same principal holds good for local bishops. They have only jurisdictional power over the laymen in their particular dioceses.

So, “obedience” for a layman is, in general, acceptance of the decisions that the hierarchy makes in governing the Church, including the establishment of parishes and dioceses, the appointments of pastors and bishops to those offices, and obedience to the laws of the Church. We should see that the essential submission to the hierarchy demanded of each Catholic means acting freely within the limits of the general laws promulgated by that hierarchy. This means keeping the Commandments of God (for social purposes, this means at least externally), and the precepts of the Church (which all relate to social or public acts); assisting at Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, in one’s own Rite, preferably at one’s local parish church; fasting and abstaining as required by universal or particular law; confessing one’s sins at least yearly; making one’s Easter duty; contributing to the support of the Church; it means marrying in accord with the law of the Church.

The submission of a Catholic to the hierarchy is especially signified by his assistance at Holy Mass in his own parish. By doing so, the Catholic recognises his local parish established by his bishop, and he recognises the pastor appointed by his bishop. By this act he shows that he belongs to this parish, and to this diocese, and he manifests his union with the bishop. He also witnesses to the fact, precisely because the bishop was appointed by the pope, that he is in union with, and subject to, the pope. The very fact that many are subject to one is itself a manifestation of unity. Likewise public prayer for the bishop and for the pope expresses this essential submission and mutual communion.

"Where the bishop is," says St. Ignatius, "there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Ad Smyrn., n. 8).

The Christian’s (at least outward) conformity with the Ten Commandments and the precepts of the Church goes to manifest his submission to the one ruling authority of the Church. And, insofar as the canons are relevant to each person, conformity with the provisions of Canon Law does the same.


Now, in the light of this it should be clear that when we speak of obeying the pope, we are speaking exclusively of laws, whether this is assenting to a doctrinal law (i.e. the authoritative teaching of the Church) or a disciplinary law. If the pope says "I recommend this idea" or "I suggest this course of action" he is not acting formally as pope. He can't expect obedience as such.

There's more to be said about this, but that will do for now.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:43 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Things that could not have happened, because God guarantees that they never will.

1. The whole hierarchy defected into heresy.

2. A General Council taught error.

3. The Church promulgated non-Catholic rites of Holy Mass and sacraments.

Now let's consider some further facts.

1. The decrees of Vatican II were sufficiently ambiguous so as to permit a Catholic bishop to subscribe to them, under the infuence of the man he thought was the Roman Pontiff, and despite deep unease about their rectitude, without by that fact disappearing into heresy himself.

2. Heresy grew rampant and virtually nothing was done about it by "rome" or most of the other bishops.

3. Paul VI promulgated new rites for mass and sacraments, and in this way fulfilled to the letter the descriptions of John de Torquemada and Suarez of how a pope might fall into schism:

Quote:
Cardinal Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, pars I, lib. IV, cap. 11, p. 369 v, quoted by da Silveira:

1 - (...) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way, he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able, without doubt, to fall into schism.

2 - The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just for pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, di. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the Universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult. This would take place in case he did not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he did not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual utility, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt Quidam and Contra Statuta (25, q. 1). Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism. The consequence is good; and the antecedent is not doubtful, for the Pope, just as he could fall into heresy, could also disobey and pertinaciously cease to observe that which was established for the common order in the Church. For this reason, Innocent says (c. “De Consue.”) that one ought to obey thePope in everything as long as he does not turn against the universal order of the Church, for in such a case the Pope must not be followed unless there is reasonable cause for this.

3 - Let us suppose that more than one person considers himself Pope, and that one of them be the true Pope, but considered by some to be probably dubious. And let ussuppose that this true Pope comported himself with such negligence and obstinacy in the pursuit of unity in the Church, that he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity. In this hypothesis the Pope would be considered as a fomenter of schism, according to the way many have argued, even in our days, in connection with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII.



Quote:
Suarez, De Caritate, disp. XII, sect. I, no. 2, pp. 733-734, quoted by da Silveira:

Schism may come about not only by reason of heresy, but also without it, as takes place when someone, conserving the faith, does not wish to maintain the unity of the Church in his actions and his manner of practicing our religion. And this may come about in two ways. In the first way, separating oneself from the head of the Church, as one reads in the chapter “Non vos”, 23, question 5, where the Gloss says that schism consists in not having the Roman Pontiff as one’s head - not denying that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the church, for this would be schism united to heresy, but either rashly denying some Pontiff in particular, or behaving oneself in relation to him as if he were not the head: for example, if someone tried to convoke a General Council without his authorization, or elect an anti-pope. This is the most common mode of schism.

There could be schism of a second mode if someone separated himself from the body of the Church not wishing to communicate with it in the participation of the Sacraments. Saint Epiphanius narrates an example of this (“Haeres.”, 68), in respect to the sect of Melecius, who dissenting with his Patriarch, Peter the Alexandrine, separated himself from him in all the sacrifices, and was accused of schism, there not existing between the two any divergence in matters of faith, as Epiphanius attests. And in this second mode the Pope could be schismatic, in case he did not want to have due union and coordination with the whole body of the Church as would be the case if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as we observed by Cajetan (ad II-II, q. 39) and, with greater amplitude, Torquemada (1. 4, c. 11).”11

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:10 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Hypothesis:

1. Some essential element was lacking to Vatican II which would have constituted it a true General Council. The obvious candidate is a pope, who is the lynchpin of a General Council, without which it ceases to exist. So much is this so that even the reverse is true - two of the General Councils were not ecumenical in their celebration yet when some of their decrees received approbation by the Roman Pontiff they gained the status of General Councils.

2. Many bishops disappeared into heresy over the course of the crisis. Some even during Vatican II; others later.

3. The promulgation of the New Mass was an act of schism, as the promulgation of the texts of Vatican II were acts of heresy. All of these acts were, however, sufficiently ambiguous or obscure so as to permit a Catholic to assent to them without himself committing any clear crime of heresy or schism.

Quote:
Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976):

[T]his Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a new church which they call themselves the "Conciliar Church".

We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council. The tree is known by its fruits. Since the Council, all the larger newspapers throughout the world, American and European, recognise that it is destroying the Catholic Church to such a degree that even the unbelievers and the secular governments are worried.
...
Accepting this new principle [of indifferentism], all the doctrine of the Church must change, as well as its cult, its priesthood, its institutions, because everything in the Church until the Council had demonstrated that she alone possessed the Way, the Truth and the Life in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom she kept in person in the Holy Eucharist, and Who is present thanks to the continuation of His sacrifice. Thus a total overturning of Tradition and of the teaching of the Church has occurred since the Council and through the Council.

All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new "Conciliar Church", as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism.


4. There was a clear public reaction to the New Mass by many of the faithful, some of the bishops, and even several cardinals. The essentially schismatic nature of its promulgation was made clear by this reaction. On the one hand, those with the clearest faith rejected it absolutely; on the other hand those who attached themselves to it revealed their anti-Catholic animus by attempting to impose it on others.

The best notion to describe this process is that which Our Lady expressed at La Salette, "The Church will be in eclipse." An eclipse is the imposition of a second body in front of the first, so as to obscure the first. The New Church was created at Vatican II, gathered members progressively from those apostatising from the true Church, and by deception presented itself as the Catholic Church. Many were actually deceived, most of them innocently. The true Church remained, however, and as its members perceived the deception, progressively manifested their separation from the New Church. This process was accelerated and amplified by the rejection of the New Mass.

The obscurity of the situation persists to a great degree, even to this day. It remains unclear which members of the Church have formally departed from her unity and attached themselves to the New Church. In many cases it is clear, but not in all cases. Archbishop Lefebvre expressed this as follows.

Quote:
Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976:

To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

Gabriele wrote:
1. It seems to me a little bit contradictory to say that "John XXIII and Paul VI ceased to apply the disciplinary power of the Church to those who needed correction" and that conciliar church " has ceased to command acceptance of her doctrines" and, at the same time, to say that "Resistance to the new liturgy and the new doctrines and practices was disallowed and even persecuted with "legal" methods".


Yes, of course, we must be precise, and the apparent contradiction will disappear.

I mean that the Conciliar church does not impose its doctrine or its practices under pain of sin and sanction as the Catholic Church does.

Their whole approach is arbitrary and tyrannous, not authoritative, because they don't believe in authority as such. Look in detail at the means by which the condemnation of Econe was conducted. Totally without process, natural justice, honesty, or consistency. A travesty of legality, but using legal forms of language. Likewise with doctrine. More below.

Gabriele wrote:
2. Conciliar "Popes" and congregations have clearly enjoined to obey to the disobedients (for exemple Bp. Lefebvre and others), pubblicly and privately. I have already posted some Letters of Paul VI and John Paul II to Lefebvre. Here I offer another example in matter of Liturgy (the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae to all the Church by Paul VI):

"C’est au nom de la Tradition que nous demandons à tous nos fils, à toutes les communautés catholiques, de célébrer, en dignité et ferveur, la Liturgie réformée. L’adoption du nouvel Ordo Missæ n’est pas laissée certes à l’arbitraire des prêtres ou des fidèles : et l’instruction du 14 juin 1971 n’a prévu la célébration de la Messe dans l’ancienne forme, avec l’autorisation de l’ordinaire, que pour des prêtres âgés ou malades qui offrent le Divin Sacrifice sine populo. Le nouvel Ordo a été promulgué pour se substituer à l’ancien, après mûre délibération, suite aux instances du Concile Vatican II. Ce n’est pas différemment que notre saint Prédécesseur Pie V avait rendu obligatoire le Missel réformé sous son autorité, suite au Concile de Trente.
Nous exigeons la même disponibilité, avec la même autorité suprême qui nous vient de Jésus-Christ, envers toutes les autres réformes liturgiques, disciplinaires, pastorales, préparées ces années en application des décrets conciliaires"
(Discours de Paul VI lors du Consistoire du 24 mai 1976).


This proves my point. Does he refer us explicitly to a bull equivalent to Quo Primum? No, because there isn't one. Instead, he does the following:

1. Asserts that the adoption of the New Mass is not a free choice of the clergy. This is an assertion of fact, not an order.

2. Asserts that the promulgation of the New Mass was meant to replace the true Mass. This is an assertion of fact, not an order. No proof is offered for it. It is meant, it seems, to prove #1 above, which it cannot do, since it is merely an ipse dixit.

3. Asserts that the New Mass was promulgated in accord with the authority of Vatican II. This is an assertion of fact, not an order. No proof is offered for it.

4. Asserts that the promulgation of the New Mass was identical in essence to the act of St. Pius V in Quo Primum. No proof is offered for this assertion, and it invites a comparison of the respective documents, which reveal that St. Pius V did make a law, binding on virtually the entire Latin Church, and carrying sanctions for disobedience; Paul VI did not make a law, did not assert that it was binding, did not name whom it bound, and did not attach any sanctions. He offered it to the Church, by having it published. That was the essence of his act.

Just in case this is not clear, Paul VI did not legislate any obligation to use the New Missal, nor did he promulgate any legislation affecting the existing law on the Missal (chiefly contained in Quo Primum). Therefore that law is still the law of the Church, and the New Mass is forbidden. The document of Paul VI supposedly "promulgating" the New Mass (laws are promulgated, not missals or liturgies) actually neither commands nor permits anyone to do anything. Read it for yourself. It's just a rhetorical work full of lies and deception, such as that the New Mass is superior, reflects the true faith, and is a witness to unbroken tradition (!). The only thing it orders is that the new Missal be published.

5. Mentions his purported authority and demands that whatever he says be accepted. Since he has not formally commanded anything by promulgating any law in this matter, he is merely demanding that his lies, listed above, be accepted, like Idi Amin or Joseph Stalin.

Gabriele wrote:
3. It is correct what you quote about the Declaration on Religious freedom. But in the closure of Dignitatis Humanae Paul VI says also:

"Tout l’ensemble et chacun des points qui ont été édictés dans cette déclaration ont plu aux Pères du Concile. Et Nous, en vertu du pouvoir apostolique que Nous tenons du Christ, en union avec les vénérables Pères, Nous les approuvons, arrêtons et décrétons dans le Saint-Esprit, et Nous ordonnons que ce qui a été ainsi établi en Concile soit promulgué pour la gloire de Dieu" (See: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... ae_fr.html).

Here is clear that Paul VI teaches authoritatively, committing all his authority.


No, he doesn't. He orders this doctrine to be published, after commenting that it has pleased everybody (it didn't, as he knew - he lied).

At Vatican I Pius IX and the whole episcopal college said the following (for example):

Quote:
But now it is our purpose to profess and declare from this chair of Peter before all eyes the saving teaching of Christ, and, by the power given us by God, to reject and condemn the contrary errors.

This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Ghost by our authority in this ecumenical council
...
The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, ... He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, ...
...
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds,
...
it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
...
Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
...
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
...
This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock. [The anathemas follow.]
...
We teach and declare that, ...


Now, have another look at what Paul VI said at Vatican II. Did he say anybody is bound by this doctrine? No. Did he say that anybody "must hold" it? No. Did he say that it is forbidden to reject it? No. He just says that he, along with the the members of the Council, believe it and he uses all of his purported authority to order it published. Thanks for that, John-Baptist Montini. Thanks for giving us the opinions held by you and your mates.

Gabriele wrote:
4. In general, it seems to me that for you a doctrine is infallible only if, next to that doctrine, there is a penalty for those who deny that doctrine. In other terms, it seems to me that for you a doctrine is not binding and not infallible if the Church does not put a sanction next to the doctrine. I think in this way you wrongly mix the power of Magisterium (of the Pope or of the Church) with the Judiciary power (always of the pope or of the Church). Normally, we distinguish two power in the Church: the power of Order and the power of Jurisdiction. The latter includes: the power of Magisterium, the power of Govern, and the Judiciary power.
Now, the power of Magisterium is distinct from the Judiciary power. For this reason, there is no need that, for to make infallible or binding a certain teaching, the Church puts a sanction for the violators. The teaching of the Church, when it concerns faith or moral, is infallible per se. We are already obliged to believe.


The penalty does not have to be explicit, must it must be clear that the subjects are bound to receive, hold, and profess, the doctrine, under pain of some sanction, even indeterminate.

Further, the debate amongst the theologians about whether the doctrinal power is part of the jurisdictional power is irrelevant. All agree that the Church teaches authoritatively, that is, her doctrine is imposed as law, not offered to men who are free to disregard it. Paul VI carefully avoided speaking in a way which would imply this clearly. You may think was an accident. Clearly it wasn't. So we must determine what it means.

See above for the examples from Vatican I which illustrate the counter-principle, the principle of the Catholic Church.



Dear John,

personally, I do not share anything of what you said. The words of Paul VI are so clear that is impossible to explain more clearly that the Novus Ordo and Dignitatis Humanae are binding for those who consider true Popes the Conciliar "Popes".

Cordially


Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
Theological truths.

1. All of the words and actions of Paul VI which suggested that the truth was no longer being imposed as a law, gave concrete expression to his heretical idea that the truth may only recommend itself, and must not be enforced in any way by authority. Dignitatis Humanae expressed this succinctly: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” This heresy was also taught by the Synod of Pistoia, and condemned by Pope Pius VI, in his Constitution, Auctorum fidei: “The proposition affirming, ‘that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love’; and then also, ‘that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees’; in so far as by those undefined words, ‘extends to exterior matters,’ the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline – heretical.”

And also: “In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church ‘does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments’ leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.”


Hi John,

I want to jump in here with a comment about what you wrote above. Before I do so, I want to be very clear in affirming that it is not my intent to defend Vatican II. That being said, I'm not sure if the quotation you cite can be declared heretical as it is written.

The quotation you cited from Vatican II does not refer to the truth being imposed by another (i.e. the magisterium). It speaks of the truth imposing "itself", which is different. It reads: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power".

I don't see a problem with that statement, as long as it is referring to the truth itself imposing itself on the mind. If the statement said "the truth cannot be imposed by an authority", I would agree with you that it would be heretical. But that is not what the statement says.

Also notice that in the condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia, it provides a heretical interpretation, or meaning, of the passage. In both of the citations you quote, the condemnation is preceded by the words “in so far as” before condemning a particular meaning of the passage.

It seems to me that in order to be precise, one would have to say the statement you cited from Vatican II is heretical in so far as it is intended to mean that the truth cannot be imposed by another. But, as I mentioned above, that is not what it says.

On final thought: If one is going to hold, as I think you do (which I do not) that at Vatican II the ordinary and universal magisterium taught error, one will need to look at each specific point that is said to be an error in order to determine if, indeed, the statement is heretical, or if, as with the above example, it is only heretical if interpreted in a particular way. Ambiguity works both ways.


Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:36 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
RJS wrote:
I'm not sure if the quotation you cite can be declared heretical as it is written.

The quotation you cited from Vatican II does not refer to the truth being imposed by another (i.e. the magisterium). It speaks of the truth imposing "itself", which is different. It reads: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power".

I don't see a problem with that statement, as long as it is referring to the truth itself imposing itself on the mind. If the statement said "the truth cannot be imposed by an authority", I would agree with you that it would be heretical. But that is not what the statement says.


I agree with you on the last point, but I doubt you meant to say that you don't see a problem with the statement. It wasn't my intent to assert that the text itself was unambiguously heretical, but rather that Paul VI held an heretical idea, and that this idea which he held in common with many other liberals, was evidenced by the text of Dignitatis Humanae. In its context the quote means that the truth ought not to be imposed by authority. In context, it is saying, "Since the truth cannot impose itself, it ought not to be imposed by any external authority" - hence the right to religious liberty. This is the same Pistoian heresy already condemned by the Church. But I agree that we must be precise and not assert that a text is heretical if it does not in itself directly assert heresy.

RJS wrote:
Also notice that in the condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia, it provides a heretical interpretation, or meaning, of the passage. In both of the citations you quote, the condemnation is preceded by the words “in so far as” before condemning a particular meaning of the passage.

It seems to me that in order to be precise, one would have to say the statement you cited from Vatican II is heretical in so far as it is intended to mean that the truth cannot be imposed by another. But, as I mentioned above, that is not what it says.


I agree with you except for your concluding sentence. I would say, "that is not what it says explicitly, but that is the obvious meaning of it in context." This is a classic example of the method used at Vatican II to inculcate error in a way that could receive the votes of hundreds of men who were themselves orthodox.

RJS wrote:
On final thought: If one is going to hold, as I think you do (which I do not) that at Vatican II the ordinary and universal magisterium taught error, one will need to look at each specific point that is said to be an error in order to determine if, indeed, the statement is heretical, or if, as with the above example, it is only heretical if interpreted in a particular way. Ambiguity works both ways.


Yes, I'm all for this. Precision should be a permanent quest, and as far as possible without fear of the consequences.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John,
Just curious as to what your objection(s) is to the new code of Canon Law?
It carried over about 90% or better of the old Code.
The one objection that stands out is that it left out the condemnation of membership in secret societies but that was clarified.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:09 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
My objections are really the same as those enunciated by Archbishop Lefebvre. It's the Code of Vatican II; the distinction between clergy and laity is essentially eliminated, the office of the papacy is perverted, and the walls of the Church are thrown down in several ways, but most symbolically in the permission for non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist. It's democratic and naturalistic. The legislative aspect of the French Revolution in the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
My objections are really the same as those enunciated by Archbishop Lefebvre. It's the Code of Vatican II; the distinction between clergy and laity is essentially eliminated, the office of the papacy is perverted, and the walls of the Church are thrown down in several ways, but most symbolically in the permission for non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist. It's democratic and naturalistic. The legislative aspect of the French Revolution in the Church.


Guess I need to study it more. The few laws that I have compared seem word for word from the old Code.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:31 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
St.Justin wrote:
Guess I need to study it more. The few laws that I have compared seem word for word from the old Code.


Yes, a great number are, but a great number are almost word-for-word also, so keep your eye on the detail. Have a look at what they did to 188,4 for an example. Absolute classic.

The main issues are as described above, however, and these are obvious enough if you read through the old Code first and ensure that you understand its structure. Once you've done that the 1983 Code looks radically different.

Another significant change, to do with removing the walls of the Church, is in the penal aspect. In many cases what used to have a sanction attached now has this vague term which goes something like, "shall be punished with appropriate penalties", leaving the bishops to be totally tolerant of all crime if they choose. Not that this was a cause of anything - the 1983 Code only formalised what was already happening. But it did formalise it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
Yes, a great number are, but a great number are almost word-for-word

Just exactly like so many of the early heretics. Sometimes one letter's difference in a Greek word changed an entire passage from orthodoxy to heresy. These VCII heretics are literally masters at this sort of abomination.

John Lane wrote:
also, so keep your eye on the detail. Have a look at what they did to 188,4 for an example. Absolute classic.

Yes! Isn't it!?!? :evil:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
St.Justin wrote:
John,
Just curious as to what your objection(s) is to the new code of Canon Law?
It carried over about 90% or better of the old Code.
The one objection that stands out is that it left out the condemnation of membership in secret societies but that was clarified.


Another objection that stands out is that the new code specifically allows for the reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics, and we're not just talking Orthdox here. This one has not been "clarified".


Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:39 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
May 1983 sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre, in English.

Quote:
Some people, and I must say that some priests, well they say, and they try to lead us into schism, and they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church, we are the Catholic Church. I don’t say that, I don’t accept that, I don’t accept that. That is a schism. If we abandon Rome, if we abandon the pope, the successor St. Peter, where are we going? Where? Where is the authority of the Church? Where is our leader in the Church? If the pope doesn’t do his duty; if the pope is not very strong in the faith; if the pope is weak, and doesn’t keep the faith, the Catholic faith, truly, and he condemns the poor faithful into the hands of the Modernists, of the Protestants, and many they lose the faith, the Catholic faith, it is not good. He doesn’t do his duty. Yes, we know that.


Hence he rejected “sedevacantism” – at least, the sedevacantism which declares that the hierarchical church had failed in toto. And no wonder - it is a heretical thesis.

Archbishop Lefebvre went on to compare the post-conciliar popes with Honorius, with the usual arguments. This is not as unfounded as may first appear, since Honorius was neither a heretic nor a fortiori an open heretic, but died with a stainless reputation. Likewise it is clear enough that Paul VI and John Paul II (at that point – 1983) were not classical cases of open heretics. They were both arch-deceivers, supreme hypocrites, attempting to maintain their status as members of the Church whilst inculcating error and heresy by a thousand noxious devices, but carefully avoiding making direct and unambiguous profession of heresy. This is not to say that it was impossible to reach a certain conclusion to the question of whether either was actually a Catholic. But it is to acknowledge that the question was difficult, and that good and learned men would naturally differ over the question.

By 1984, a year later, John Paul II's acts and words had produced the conviction in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre that he was not a Catholic. Note the reasons that the Archbishop gives for his shift, for his new clarity of judgement.

Quote:
The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a pope Catholic in his faith and government. Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth. (Quoted by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Fideliter, n. 123, pp. 25-29. May-June 1998.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
Now, have another look at what Paul VI said at Vatican II. Did he say anybody is bound by this doctrine? No. Did he say that anybody "must hold" it? No. Did he say that it is forbidden to reject it? No. He just says that he, along with the the members of the Council, believe it and he uses all of his purported authority to order it published. Thanks for that, John-Baptist Montini. Thanks for giving us the opinions held by you and your mates.

Stated that if one doctrine is binding it is by consequence forbidden to reject it, the answer to these questions is: Yes, of course. Paul VI said it:

- Not only in the private letters to Bp. Lefebvre that I have already cited and that you continue to feel inexplicably irrelevants.

- Not only in the famous hearing on January 12, 1966: « …le Concile a attribué à ses enseignements l’autorité du Magistère suprême ordinaire ; lequel est si manifestement authentique qu’il doit être accueilli par tous les fidèles... ».

- But also in the Speech at the Consistory of 24 May 1976 where Paul VI speak explicitly of an opposition led by Bp. Lefebvre who “dares to say that Vatican II is not binding, that faith would be in danger also because of the reforms and guidelines Post-Conciliar” (Immo asserire non dubitant Concilium Vaticanum II vi obligandi carere).


Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
4. The particular character of Vatican II was brought into some obscurity by the opening speech made by John XXIII (that it was to be "pastoral" rather than "dogmatic") and by the parallel comments of Paul VI.

7. Faith, which is the foundation of the Church, the first of her bonds of unity, and which consists in the supernaturally aided assent of the mind to truths preached authoritatively by the Church, was made to appear optional. The Church to all appearances ceased preaching as one having authority. It appeared that she had ceased to command acceptance of her doctrines.

8. Paul VI didn't believe in authority infallibly declaring truth so that the subject is obliged to receive this truth under pain of damnation. He believed that "truth recommends itself" etc.


John Lane wrote:
The penalty does not have to be explicit, must it must be clear that the subjects are bound to receive, hold, and profess, the doctrine, under pain of some sanction, even indeterminate.

Further, the debate amongst the theologians about whether the doctrinal power is part of the jurisdictional power is irrelevant. All agree that the Church teaches authoritatively, that is, her doctrine is imposed as law, not offered to men who are free to disregard it. Paul VI carefully avoided speaking in a way which would imply this clearly. You may think was an accident. Clearly it wasn't. So we must determine what it means.


The theological incorrectness of these statements is demonstrated by the following words of the Fr. Guérard Des Lauriers o.p.:

"… la définition promulguée par « Pape et Concile œcuménique » s’impose ipso facto à chacun des « pères » du Concile. Or, ceux-ci récapitulent : en tant qu’ils doivent eux-mêmes acquiescer à la définition qu’ils promulguent, toute l’Eglise enseignée ; en tant qu’ils doivent communiquer ladite définition aux fidèles dont ils sont les pasteurs, toute l’Eglise enseignante. L’œcuménicité entraîne que, par l’acte posé, l’Eglise se juge et s’oblige elle-même ; cela, évidemment, n’est possible que dans le Christ, car Lui seul peut réaliser pour Son épouse ce qu’Il est Seul à pouvoir affirmer de Soi-Même : « Quoique je rende témoignage de moi-même, mon témoignage est vrai » (Jean VIII, 14).
(Ce critère) se trouve, il est vrai, confirmé dans les schémas des Conciles, par les anathèmes, lesquels sont des excommunications solennelles. Telle doctrine doit évidemment être tenue par toute l’Eglise si, du seul fait qu’on la refuse, on est hors de l’Eglise. Il ne faut cependant pas ériger comme étant premier ce qui, en réalité, est subordonné. Ce qui est premier, ce sont les textes des Conciles qui affirment la vérité ; les anathèmes qui condamnent l’erreur ne peuvent être que subordonnés. La prescription, faite à toute l’Eglise, d’adhérer à telle doctrine, est enclose dans l’œcuménicité de l’acte par lequel cette doctrine est promulguée. Les anathèmes n’ont rôle que de confirmation utile ; autrement d’ailleurs, on réduirait aux anathèmes les textes qui, par eux-mêmes, sont certainement promulgués avec la note d’infaillibilité.
M (Michel MARTIN) allègue que Vatican II n’obligerait pas les fidèles, du fait que Jean XXIII et Paul VI préconisèrent « d’utiliser le remède de la miséricorde… [ce qui est] exactement le contraire des anathema sit ». Mais cette allégation repose sur une confusion. Il y a, d’une part, l’obligation ; et, d’autre part, les sanctions portées contre quiconque manque à cette obligation. Que l’autorité s’abstienne de fulminer les sanctions, n’implique nullement qu’elle renonce à prescrire l’obligation. Un père ne donnerait-il un ordre véritable que s’il y associe une éventuelle punition ? L’Eglise cesserait-elle, parce qu’elle use de miséricorde, de se manifester comme étant infaillible ? Pastor æternus n’affirme nullement que « prescrire à toute l’Eglise » doive s’accompagner de sanctions. Le supposer n’est qu’une « pieuse » mais fantaisiste aberration, par laquelle on vise à sécuriser le désir de « sauver » Jean-Paul II et Vatican II sous le couvert du Droit Canon.
Ajoutons enfin que la prescription faite à tous les fidèles figure explicitement dans le texte de Paul VI que nous avons cité (N° 1 des Cahiers de Cassiciacum, note 8, pp. 15-16) :« … le Magistère suprême ordinaire est si manifestement authentique qu’il doit être accueilli par tous les fidèles… ».
Et, en ce qui concerne la liberté religieuse, la volonté expresse d’obliger toute l’Eglise a été confirmée par les faits. C’est par application de cette doctrine que le catholicisme a cessé d’être religion d’état, en Espagne et en Suisse. Réaliser les conséquences d’une doctrine dans les cas où celle-ci n’était pas encore appliquée, c’est, de la part de l’autorité, signifier a fortiori que cette doctrine doit être tenue par tous comme étant la vérité" (M.L. GUÉRARD DES LAURIERS, “Sophisme et truisme (de Michel MARTIN)”, paru dans le N° 5 des Cahiers de Cassiciacum (décembre 1980), pages 34-35).


Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:03 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Answered here: viewtopic.php?p=13183#p13183

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:40 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Looks like a good thread!


Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Pax Christi !


John posted
Quote:
In the light of Fr. Cekada's decision to adopt a heresy as part of his explanation of the crisis,


I have recently read your exchange on IG, what heresy has Fr. Cekada adopted?

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:28 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Hi Vince,

When you ask, "what heresy" are you asking if there is an already condemned heresy? Otherwise, I don't understand the question. I explained in that thread why I disagree with him and why I think his position is incompatible with dogma, specifically the dogma that there will always be successors of the Apostles, that the Apostolic College cannot fail.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:42 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Fr Calderon teaches at La Reja seminary in Argentina.

Quote:

IDS

Authority of Vatican II

(Summarized and adapted from a paper of Rev. Álvaro Calderón)

No serious theologian teaches that Vatican II belongs to the infallible magisterium. There is in this, at least, agreement. For further proof, see for example, the opening speech of John XXIII, the notification of the Secretariat of the Council (16 November 1964), the very way the council acts, the repeated claims of Paul VI after the close of the Council; (the council) "avoided enacting solemn dogmatic definitions that would compromise the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium", but wanted to have "the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, manifestly authentic" (closing speech at the council, 12/07/65 , audience 12/01/66) how Pope John Paul II talked about it, referring to the council only as "authentic teaching" and finally what has been said by the current Pope (when he was Cardinal) to our Episcopal Conference:

"The truth is that the same Council did not define any dogma, and consciously wanted to express itself at a more modest level, as a merely pastoral council." The same council called itself "pastoral", that is, non-dogmatic, which, besides being a novelty, is very relevant in the determination of its authority.

a) Authentic vehicles of the magisterium:

The authentic vehicles of the Church’s magisterium are the Pope and the bishops. We say "authentic" because they participate in the divine authority in a proper and habitual way and while there are other subsidiary bodies, like the members of the Roman congregations, they do so in a transient and delegated way. The authentic magisterium can work in four ways:

- the Pope alone.

- The Pope and the bishops gathered in ecumenical council.

- Pope in communion with the bishops throughout the world.

- The bishops alone.

Of these four modes, only in the first three can the magisterium be exercised in its highest degree, because the fullness of the teaching authority resides only in the Pope.

b) The types of magisterium:

b.1) "authentic" Magisterium is formally exercised by authentic bodies as such. The authentic magisterium is divided, in turn, into "infallible" and "simply true".

b.2) The "simply true" Magisterium , occurs in those acts where the authority of Christ is not put at stake in full mode.

b.3) The authentic "infallible" magisterium occurs in those acts in which comprises the authority of Christ in full mode. The"infallible" Magisterium , is divided into "extraordinary" and "ordinary".

b.3.1) "extraordinary infallible magisterium (or formal)" is one that can be recognized as such in a single act, considered absolutely and in itself. It's called "extraordinary" because it is found in the definitions given "ex cathedra" by the Pope, and the definitions and anathemas of an ecumenical council.

b.3.2) "infallible ordinary Magisterium" is given when the note of infallibility is achieved not by one but by a series of different acts of teaching that work together to teach the same truth, though expressed in different words or contexts . This mode of supreme magisterium is exercised especially-but not exclusively-by the Pope and the bishops scattered in their respective dioceses, and is called "ordinary" because it occurs in both the general daily preaching of pastors, and because it has been the way most of the fundamental truths of the Catholic faith have been transmitted.

Notice that the terms "extraordinary" and "ordinary" are confusing, because the ecumenical council is an "extraordinary body" of the supreme magisterium and in this sense it could be said that all its teaching is "extraordinary", nonetheless not all its acts are infallible in the "extraordinary way" and some may be infallible in the "ordinary way", as explained below. We will use these two names in the strictest sense of descriptions of infallibility, not of the magisterial body.

c) Criteria for determining the teaching authority:

The First Vatican Council defined the criteria for judging when the "extraordinary infallible magisterium" of the Pope himself exists, and how the teaching of an ecumenical council enjoys the same infallibility as the "ex cathedra" definitions of the Roman Pontiff. The criteria for judging are analogous:

1 Subject: the Council must be legitimate, properly convened, chaired and confirmed by the Pope in order to have the possibility of possessing the power of supreme teaching authority, and in order to exercise it in deed as such.

2 Matter: should be a doctrine of faith or morals, though the magisterium is only exercised in matter which has a connection with Revelation, directly (primary object) or indirectly (secondary object).

3 Recipients or listeners: the teaching must be addressed to the universality of the faithful not to any particular diocese or person, nor to those who do not profess the Catholic faith.

4 Intention: the statement must be given so that the faithful accept it as infallibly certain: by divine faith, if the object is Revealed, or excluding the possibility of error if only a matter related to the deposit of faith. This intention must be manifested, both by the text and the context.

A council exercises the "infallible magisterium in the ordinary way" in those decrees, which though considered in themselves do not have sufficiently the features clearly marked for extraordinary infallible teaching; considered, however, in connection with the previous teachings of the Councils and the Popes, or the teaching of the universality of the bishops in their dioceses, or the universal belief of the faithful, they do have analogous characteristics to the four mentioned.

All the rest of the teachings of a legitimate ecumenical council as such which does not have the level of infallible teaching in the extraordinary way, is "simply authentic magisterium".

Given the universal principles for judging an act of conciliar magisterium, let us now see how authority was actually exercised in the Second Vatican Council.

Does the council gave an "extraordinary infallible magisterium"?

The exercise of magisterium in a council depends formally and ultimately on how the Roman Pontiff invests his own authority in it. Now, in the Second Vatican Council there was no "infallible extraordinary magisterium" because there was a serious lack of intention to propose it as such. This point does not seem to offer more discussion because not only lacked the explicit intention of imposing any doctrinal statement, but the contrary-explicitly-stated intention not to impose any doctrine infallibly.

Does the council gave a "simply authentic magisterium"?

The divine authority or assistance of the Holy Ghost is not committed to the same degree in the various acts of authentic magisterium and can go from almost full to almost zero. Now, who seeks to reach the truth by "dialogue" does not intend to teach as an authority, because dialogue itself is opposed to the magisterium as its contrary. But the idea of ​​the council was to put itself in dialogue with the Church, other religions and the world. There was, therefore, no exercise of formal and explicit magisterium. Moreover, as the neo-modernist version of the sensus fidei teaches that the voice of the people is the voice of God and that this voice speaks through the neo-theologians, liberal dynamics imposed on the council made the "experts" "masters of the bishops ". However, the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not promised to theologians but to the hierarchy. Therefore, if it is not supported by the authority of its own charisma but, in reverse, is a disciple of the "new theology", the teaching that results from such an assembly has little of the divine about it.

This defect affecting the Council implies, then, a fundamental flaw that destroys the four notes of discernment of teaching authority, by domino effect:

1 Intention: The Council declined to impose a magisterium but to propose a dialogue.

2 recipients or hearers: all mankind should intervene in this dialogue and so the council directed its voice not only to the Catholic faithful "but to all men" (Gaudium et Spes, n ° 2).

3 matter: in its desire for dialogue, the Council accepted that modern views of revelation but come the revolution.

4 Subject: submitting to dialogue, the Popes did not confirm the Council, i.e.subordinating it to their personal charisma, in persona Christi, but subordinating themselves to the sensus fidei, and acting in persona Populi Dei and, in a way, in persona Humanitatis.

In conclusion, the Vatican is not "infallible magisterium" or even "merely authentic"; which, though tragic and surprising, has a very positive side: it leaves the door open for a future declaration of nullity.


The original article from which this summary was taken can be consulted here: http://es.scribd.com/doc/76675513/Alvar ... el-celemin

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
John Lane wrote:
Fr Calderon teaches at La Reja seminary in Argentina....


I understand what he's saying, but it doesn't seem to agree with the Conciliar cardinals and bishops. It seems that it is fairly accurate; but I am not much of a scholar. The problem is that the Conciliar church doesn't seem to agree. Frankly, I don't know who is and who is not a "serious theologian", but, based on what I have read from Conciliar sources in the past, the "serious theologians" in the Vatican would completely disagree with Fr. Calderon.


Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:37 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Another contribution on the question of the nature of the teaching authority of Vatican II.

Religious Liberty and the Ordinary Magisterium

Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize

In a book published in March 2007, Fr. Bernard Lucien1 devoted six studies to the question of the authority of the Magisterium and its infallibility:

Quote:
What we maintain, which many so-called “traditionalist” authors deny, is that the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church applies to the central affirmation of the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.


Religious Freedom: Infallible?

Fr. Lucien asserts that the teaching of Vatican II on religious freedom is infallible because it is the equivalent of a teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. We know that the pope can exercise the Magisterium infallibly and that he can do so whether alone or with the bishops. Three unique circumstances in which the supreme authority enjoys infallibility can be distinguished: 1) an act of the physical person of the pope speaking ex cathedra; 2) an act of the moral person of an ecumenical council, which is the physical assembly of the pope and the bishops; and 3) the body of acts, unanimous and simultaneous, that emanates from all the pastors of the Church, the pope and the bishops, but dispersed and not gathered together. The teaching of the pope speaking ex cathedra and that of an ecumenical council correspond to the infallibility of the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, while the unanimous teaching of all the bishops dispersed, under the authority of the pope, is the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

This ordinary and universal Magisterium is the subject of the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius of Vatican I. It states that:

Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.2

And in the letter Tuas Libenter of December 21, 1862, Pope Pius IX speaks of the “ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world” (Dz. 1683). During the First Vatican Council, in a speech of April 6, 1870, the official representative of the Pope, Msgr. Martin, gave the following clarification to the text of Dei Filius:

The word universal means about the same thing as the word used by the Holy Father in the apostolic letter Tuas Libenter, namely the Magisterium of the whole Church spread throughout the world.

It is clear, then, that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is to be distinguished from the Magisterium of an ecumenical council, just as the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops dispersed is distinguished from the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops assembled.

On one hand, Vatican II is an ecumenical council. But on the other hand, Pope Paul VI twice stated that this council had refrained from pronouncing with its extraordinary teaching power any dogmas bearing the note of infallibility. The Council simply intended to vest its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium, which is clearly authentic [By the expression “authentic Magisterium,” theologians today commonly mean non-infallible teaching–Ed.]. While Vatican II, as any legitimately convoked ecumenical council, could have been the organ of a solemn teaching of the Magisterium, it did not desire to exercise its authority as such, and that is why, as Paul VI stated, its teachings do not have the weight of solemnly defined dogmas. But neither are they teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium since by definition an ecumenical council does not correspond to this category of the Magisterium.

Fr. Lucien claims the contrary. According to him, the infallible ordinary and universal Magisterium can be exercised when the bishops and the pope are dispersed as well as when they are assembled in council. According to his hypothesis, an ecumenical council can exercise both types of infallible teaching authority: that of the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium and that of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The declarations of Paul VI exclude the possibility of a teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium at Vatican II. Therefore, if one is to maintain that the teachings that issued from Vatican II are infallible, they can only be so by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This is what remains to be examined.

Rupture or Continuity?

The declarations of Vatican I and of Pope Pius IX show very well that there is a radical difference between the infallibility of a council and that of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. But there is something even more serious. The present successor of St. Peter, Benedict XVI, recognizes this opposition between Vatican II and Pius IX in the epilogue of a book he published in 1982, Principles of Catholic Theology.3 While still cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger stated, “with the vigor and theological clarity for which he is renowned,”4 this formal and irremediable opposition. Explaining how the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) “has come to be increasingly regarded as the true legacy” of Vatican Council II,5 the future Pope Benedict XVI remarked: “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus.”6 Indeed, “the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”7

Fr. Lucien constructs his reasoning to show that, far from there being a rupture, there is an integral continuity between Vatican II and Pius IX, between the teaching of the Council on religious freedom and the antecedent Tradition.

St. Vincent of Lerins’s Rule to the Rescue of Vatican II?

If one wishes to assert such continuity, it becomes necessary to see in the teachings of Vatican II a development of truths that would have been heretofore held in a vague and implicit state in the Church’s preaching.8 Fr. Lucien develops at length the question of the passage from implicit to explicit in the Church’s teaching. The reader cannot but become aware of it by seeing the care and the abundance of references he uses over some 20 pages9 in order to establish the real import of the canon of St. Vincent of Lerins. This is precisely the crux of the problem our author has set himself to resolve: in order to deny the contradiction between Pius IX’s Quanta Cura and Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, he must see in the latter document a development of the former. Vatican II would thus have taught not different truths, but the same truth presented in different, more precise, terms. Fr. Lucien desires to prove that the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty is a dogmatic clarification of the teaching of Pius IX, a teaching perfectly homogeneous with Tradition.

The Real Meaning of St. Vincent de Lerins’s Rule

The labor is in vain. St. Vincent’s canon is undoubtedly of great interest. It is not for a mere nothing that Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin devoted Theses 23 and 24 of his celebrated treatise On Divine Tradition to the exegesis of the Lerinien rule. It is true that it is possible to misunderstand its true import: it is not as easy to read as it may seem. Fr. Lucien thinks that the traditionalists have misread this text, and that the correct reading would condemn their refusal of the Council. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if one has grasped the true significance of the Commonitorium, there is nothing in it that would justify seeing in Vatican II a legitimate development of traditional teaching. Quite the contrary, the criterion “always and everywhere” perfectly justifies the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and all of those who have decided to refuse the Council’s teachings.

St. Vincent’s Rule

St. Vincent of Lerins enounces his famous rule in these terms:

In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic”....This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.10

Cardinal Franzelin argued that this rule could be understood both affirmatively and exclusively of the whole truth, and only the truth, believed everywhere, always, and by all. But in the spirit of St. Vincent of Lerins, this adage must be understood only in an affirmative sense, and not in an exclusive sense, of truths believed explicitly. All the truths that today demand explicit belief by the members of the Church have been believed everywhere, always, and by all; but they have been so in one manner or another, either explicitly or implicitly. It does not follow that only the truths that have been explicitly believed everywhere, always, and by all can and must oblige explicit faith in the Church today. Other truths were at first believed only implicitly and not always nor everywhere nor by all in an explicit manner before becoming the object of an explicit and unanimous belief. This is, for example, the case of the truth of the Immaculate Conception.

Cardinal Franzelin

Franzelin explains in detail the difference between explicit and implicit belief in Thesis 23:

There is a difference between revealed truths, and this shows that it is neither necessary nor desirable that all revealed truths be contained in one and the same manner in the preaching of the apostles and in the course of tradition.11

The truths which had to be believed explicitly from the start were preached and transmitted from the apostolic age in an explicit manner. These are the principle mysteries of the Catholic Faith, which correspond to the twelve articles of the Creed. But, Franzelin remarks, these explicitly revealed truths possess a great fecundity:

They can correspond in an infinite number of ways to the exigencies of different epochs. They oppose very different errors which human weakness or perversity can invent. Thus the matter is clear: none of the revealed dogmas was proposed or enounced by the apostles in a manner to make clear all these different modalities, which would have been morally impossible. That was unnecessary, since, as Christ had promised and instituted, the successors of the apostles were to receive the charism of infallibility at the same time as they received the doctrine, so as to be able to respond to the demands of every age by proposing and explaining revealed truths.

In his Thesis 9, Franzelin sums up St. Vincent’s Rule this way:

The teachings of Tradition that all must believe explicitly have always received a perfectly unanimous assent. However, objective revelation can contain points of doctrine which, at one time or another, have not elicited a clearly expressed unanimity or which in reality have not received unanimity. That is why it is impossible for a revealed doctrine, after being unanimously defended and explicitly professed among the successors of the apostles, to be denied within the Church. And reciprocally, it is impossible for a doctrine, after having been denied and condemned unanimously, to be defended. But it may happen that a perfect unanimity will arise only after a doctrine has elicited different opinions.12

This gives us a negative criterion: the Church’s current explicit teaching cannot contradict previous explicit teaching.

Example: Religious Freedom

Freedom of conscience and worship did not receive explicit condemnation in the documents of the Magisterium until the time when human weakness and perversity had perfected this pernicious error. Pope Gregory XVI was more or less13 the first to denounce this error in the Encyclical Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832. From that moment, it was incumbent on faithful Catholics to adhere explicitly to the condemnation. The successors of Gregory XVI in the 19th century, from Pius IX (with Quanta Cura) to Leo XIII (with Immortale Dei) constantly reiterated this teaching.14 The Encyclical Quanta Cura of December 8, 1864, (DS 2896) corresponds to an act of the solemn [or extraordinary] Magisterium, bearing the notes of ex cathedra infallibility.15 From this moment at which the Magisterium proposed a truth with all the requisite clarity, Cardinal Franzelin observes,

the question having been clarified, this dogma henceforth belongs to the body of explicit Catholic belief and plain teaching. With this clear consensus and explicit teaching, the dogma can no longer be the object of a disagreement or “obscuring” within the Church.16

No consensus that might develop in opposition to this explicit belief could ever prevail. Here we can apply the rule expressed above by Franzelin: “It is impossible for a doctrine, after having been denied and condemned unanimously, to be defended.”

Fr. Lucien’s Sophism

This example illustrates why we cannot follow Fr. Lucien’s analysis. The explanation he gives of St. Vincent’s Rule is taken from Franzelin’s treatise; this is uncontested. But far from parrying the argumentation of the Society of Saint Pius X, it serves rather to confirm it. The teaching of Vatican II on religious freedom as it figures in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae is in formal opposition to the constant, explicit teaching of the Church since Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX. It can in no way serve as the basis of a legitimate consensus nor prevail against the traditional doctrine. The present-day unanimous consensus of the explicit teaching of the Church is what defines the acts of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. But the teaching that issued from Vatican II cannot claim to represent this consensus, since it contradicts what has been believed explicitly always, everywhere, and by all.

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium, Organ of Tradition

One might however object that for the last 40 years, the entire Teaching Church dispersed in the episcopal college comprising the Pope and the bishops in their dioceses unanimously teaches the principle of religious freedom. Would this not constitute the expression of the infallible ordinary universal Magisterium? The infallible teaching of the post-Council would thus be the echo of the authentic teaching of the Council.

In order to respond fully to this objection, let us remark that, in order to be universal, the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the college of bishops dispersed throughout the world must fulfill two conditions: there must be current universality in space, or unanimity; there must also be universality in time, or continuity. These two factors are required for the universality that formally defines the ordinary Magisterium.

Unanimity and Continuity

Actual universality in space concerns the teaching subject. The ordinary universal Magisterium is, from this perspective, the preaching of the episcopal college; the unanimity from which it results is the unanimity of the bishops of the present moment in history. If, by considering the viewpoint of the subject, one should say that the Magisterium is the unanimity of all the bishops and all the popes from St. Peter and the apostles, one would destroy the very notion of the ordinary Magisterium.

Continuity concerns the object taught. It refers to a universality that is not only in space but also in time. The ordinary universal Magisterium is the proposition of revealed doctrine. This doctrine is substantially immutable, which means that it remains unchanged both in time and in space, not only from the ends of the earth, but also from one end of history to the other. The ordinary Magisterium is by definition a traditional Magisterium: it is a Magisterium that preaches today and cannot be in disagreement with the Magisterium of yesterday, as St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians,1:8-9:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

These two constituent properties are observable in reality: they are evident to the faithful and enable them to recognize the infallibility of a teaching. That is why the current unanimity and continuity are not only elements that enter into the definition of this teaching; they are also criteria of visibility. But there is an order between the two, for the criterion of current unanimity depends on the criterion of continuity. If the pastors are currently unanimous, it is because their teaching is the constant teaching of one and the same unchangeable deposit of faith.

Current Unanimity

Current unanimity in space, at the level of the teaching subject, constitutes a criterion of visibility. Franzelin explains in Thesis 9:

Once the existence of the authoritative, continuously living Magisterium, which is the organ established for conserving Tradition, has been ascertained, it suffices to demonstrate that unanimity of faith among the successors of the apostles has materialized at one time or another in order to be able to solidly establish that a point of doctrine belongs to divine revelation and the apostolic tradition.

We have an example of the use of this criterion with Pope Pius XII’s proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption. In the Bull Munificentissimus Deus of November 1, 1950, defining the dogma, the Pope alludes to the consultation that took place beforehand on May 1, 1946, during which he tried to verify that the truth of the Assumption was the object of the unanimous, present-day preaching of the pastors in the Church:

This “outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,”17 affirming that the bodily Assumption of God’s Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church’s ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

This criterion is first of all negative: the doctrine is not contested by anyone within the Church, and there is no divergence among the prelates. But this criterion is also positive: the pastors all employ the same expressions; they all quote the same authoritative sources; they quote one another mutually; and in particular, they all refer to the same teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff given in a reference work. Through all these signs, unanimity can be observed and the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium ascertained.

The Criterion of Continuity

the Magisterium is constant when traditional

The teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium cannot be reduced to a teaching subject. An act of teaching presupposes both a teaching subject—the teacher—and an object taught—the doctrine. And the object taught must obey very precise rules. For the act of teaching with the Church’s Magisterium has an essential property: it must be traditional. It must be a teaching in which the teacher always proposes the same substantial object. That is why, if we consider things not only in relation to ourselves but as they are in themselves, universality as regards the object—continuity through time—precedes and governs universality as regards the teaching subject—unanimity in space—because it is the object taught that defines an act of teaching. The Church’s Magisterium is a function of a very particular teaching, for its purpose is to conserve and hand down without substantial change the unalterable deposit of truths already revealed and attested by Jesus Christ.

This reality has two consequences. Firstly, the traditional Magisterium of the Church differs from the teaching authority of science, for the latter advances through research, and its goal is the discovery of new truths, whereas the former does not seek to discover new truths, but must rather hand down definitively revealed truth, without possibility of substantial change. But secondly, the traditional Magisterium of the Church is also different from the foundational Magisterium [teaching authority] of Christ and His apostles. Christ attests the truth for the first time, for He reveals it, which is why His word alone is authoritative and cannot be judged in relation to a preceding testimony. Contrariwise, the Church’s Magisterium attests the truths already attested by Christ and the apostles; it bears witness to a witness, and that is why its word holds true if and only if it remains faithful to the word of Christ and His apostles, already well known by all, at the very least in the Apostles’ Creed and the catechism.

the criterion of continuity, touchstone of current unanimity

This is why the bishops cannot be actually unanimous, in formal agreement as bishops, in such a way as to constitute the infallible teaching body of the ordinary universal Magisterium, unless they are in agreement with all the past explicit Tradition by their continuing to hand down the same revealed deposit. If one can observe in the teaching of churchmen that “a change has been introduced in the profession of faith that was till then the object of universal assent, the yes replacing the no or vice-versa,” by that very fact this preaching “is no longer that of the Church of Christ.”18 The continuity of the teaching is the basis of the unanimity of the teachers. And we see very well that at the time of the Second Vatican Council (and ever since) the Decree on Religious Freedom did not establish unanimity among the pastors.

This continuity of a substantially immutable teaching can be ascertained by simple natural reason. Thus a break or discontinuity in this teaching can also be ascertained by reason following the simple rules of logic: even a non-Catholic journalist is perfectly capable of recognizing one, should the pope innovate by contradicting his predecessors. In fact, many observers, even non-Catholics, grasped the import of Vatican II’s aggiornamento when they hailed the Declaration on Religious Freedom as an unprecedented novelty: at last, they crowed, the Church is abandoning its reactionary obscurantism and recognizing the claims of the modern world. Was this not also the observation of Cardinal Ratzinger in his Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), detailed above, when he employed the expression “countersyllabus”? The faithful Catholic too, whose mind is enlightened by faith, is quite capable of perceiving the rupture.

not Protestant private judgment

The application of this rule does not constitute an exercise of private judgment in matters of faith. Protestant private judgment establishes an antagonism between the current judgment of the faithful and the current judgment of the Magisterium; reversing due order, Protestantism holds the private judgment of the believer as the rule of the magisterial judgment in every period of history. What we are saying is something completely different: the conflict we observe (which is the one St. Paul spoke of) is occurring between the past and the present, between the Magisterium of yesterday and the new Magisterium of today. Consequently there is a rupture in the teaching of the Magisterium, and the faithful merely makes a note of it.

It is true that the object vouched for as such cannot be the criterion making known the validity of the testimony that guarantees it. But the object proposed by the Church’s Magisterium is not like other things guaranteed by some authority, for it is not an object guaranteed for the first time by the Magisterium. Rather, it is an object already vouched for by Christ and the apostles once and for all because divinely revealed. The Magisterium cannot change the fundamental, initial testimony of the Word Incarnate. That is why an object already guaranteed for the first time by Christ and the apostles is the rule according to which the object proposed by the Church’s Magisterium must be judged. A Catholic can therefore perfectly judge the teaching of the present because, if he judges the present, he does not do it like a Protestant, according to his own lights. The Catholic can and even must judge the teaching of the present because he does so by the light of past teaching. It is the past that judges the present, because it is the truth already revealed by Christ and handed down by the Magisterium of yesterday that governs the Magisterium of today.

the intelligibility of dogma

In other words, even if it is incomprehensible and obscure (because it is vouched for and not evident), dogma is intelligible. It is presented as a logical proposition in which a predicate is attributed to a subject. Even though the faithful does not understand the link between the two, he knows that if this link exists, the proposition is true and thus the opposite proposition is false. He also knows that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself by sometimes affirming that the link exists, and sometimes denying it. If faithful Catholics are denied the ability to compare current doctrine with the doctrine of all time and to verify the continuity of the Church’s teaching, then they are forbidden to understand what they are saying when they make a profession of faith; a blind obedience to pure formulae devoid of meaning would be required of them. But the Catholic Church has never professed such a nominalism.

a negative criterion

We can say that a negative criterion exists: the absence of continuity in explicit teaching is a criterion by which one can conclude that current teaching does not belong to the deposit of faith and thus no longer reflects the exercise of an authentic ecclesiastical teaching authority faithful to its function. This negative criterion is well summed up in certain expressions of St. Paul. As Cardinal Billot remarked:

St. Paul speaks of false doctrine as “strange” doctrine. “...thou fulfillest the charge I gave thee, when I passed into Macedonia, to stay behind at Ephesus. There were some who needed to be warned against teaching strange doctrines...” (I Tim. 1:3)....If from one age to another someone gives an explanation of a dogma of faith that is different from the one previously given, this explanation will be considered heterodox, in opposition to orthodoxy, and it can easily and without private judgment be recognized as an heretical affirmation from the simple fact that it is absolutely new, that is, if it introduces a meaning different from the meaning received from Tradition.19

Vatican II Condemned by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium

With this negative criterion we return to the rule enounced by St. Vincent of Lerins as explained by Cardinal Franzelin–and, following his lead, Fr. Lucien himself: That which has been believed explicitly, continually in time, everywhere, and by all is a truth of Catholic faith, against which no contemporary consensus can ever prevail. The religious liberty preached since Vatican II goes against the explicit, constant, and unanimous teaching of the Church; it is the chief manifestation of the new “heresy of the 20th century,” the modernist heresy.




Translated exclusively by Angelus Press from the Courrier de Rome (Feb. 2008, pp.1-6). Abridged 25% by James Vogel, Assistant Editor on the staff. Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, a Frenchman, a graduate of the French École Nationale des Chartes, was ordained in 1996 at Écône, and has been professor of philosophy and theology at the seminary there ever since.

1 Fr. Bernard Lucien (b. 1952) was ordained a priest at Ecône in 1978. He left the Society of Saint Pius X to join the sedevacantists. In a study published in 1988, he demonstrated the contradiction between the traditional teaching of popes (Gregory XVI and Pius IX) and the doctrine of Vatican II on religious freedom. In 1992, he abandoned sedevacantism to join the “Ecclesia Dei” groups and justify the teachings of Vatican II. After having been a member of the Institute of Christ the King, and having taught at the Fraternity of St. Peter and at the Barroux Monastery, he is now a priest of the archdiocese of Vaduz in Liechtenstein. In conservative conciliar circles, Fr. Lucien is looked upon as an expert on the Magisterium and infallibility. He can be reproached with the same reproach Archbishop Lefebvre made of all the sedevacantist priests who left him, several of whom subsequently adopted the attitudes of Vatican II diametrically opposed to sedevacantism: his analysis is the work of a pure theoretician (trained in mathematics), always torn between two extremes (either Vatican II is wrong and Paul VI was not pope, or else Paul VI was pope and Vatican II is right.

2 Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. by Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th ed. of the Enchiridion Symbolorum [hereafter abbreviated Dz.] (1955; reprint, Loreto Publications, n.d.), 1792.

3 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Theologische Prinzipienlehre (Munich: Erich Wewel Verlag, 1982); English version: (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp.365-93.

4 Fr. Bernard Lucien, The Degrees of Authority of the Magisterium [French] (La Nef, 2007), p.178.

5 Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p.378.

6 Ibid., p.381.

7 Ibid., p.382.

8 The thesis of Father Basil, O.S.B., of the Barroux Monastery goes along this line.

9 Lucien, The Degrees of Authority, pp.137-58.

10 St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, online at www.newadvent.org/fathers.

11 Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin, De Divina Traditione, 4th ed. (Rome, 1896), pp.259-60.

12 Ibid., Thesis 9, corollary 2, p.82.

13 Pope Pius VII had already condemned the same error in his Apostolic Letter Post tam Diuturnitas of April 29, 1814.

14 See Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned (Angelus Press, 2002), pp.22-31.

15 See Cardinal Louis Billot, De Ecclesia, 4th ed. (Rome, 1921), Q.14, Thesis, 31, §1, n.2, p.635; Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, s.v. “Infaillibilité”; Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, pp.29-31.

16 Franzelin, De Divina Traditione, Thesis 9, corollary 1, p.82.

17 The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in the Acta Pii IX, pars 1, Vol. 1, p.615.

18 Franzelin, De Divina Traditione, p.82.

19 Cardinal Louis Billot, “Tradition et modernisme: De l’immuable tradition contre la nouvelle hérésie de l’évolutionisme,” Courrier de Rome, No.61, p.45.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 02, 2013 11:40 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
My previously expresed view:

John Lane wrote:
4. Asserts that the promulgation of the New Mass was identical in essence to the act of St. Pius V in Quo Primum. No proof is offered for this assertion, and it invites a comparison of the respective documents, which reveals that St. Pius V did make a law, binding on virtually the entire Latin Church, and carrying sanctions for disobedience; Paul VI did not make a law, did not assert that it was binding, did not name whom it bound, and did not attach any sanctions. He offered it to the Church, by having it published. That was the essence of his act.

Just in case this is not clear, Paul VI did not legislate any obligation to use the New Missal, nor did he promulgate any legislation affecting the existing law on the Missal (chiefly contained in Quo Primum). Therefore that law is still the law of the Church, and the New Mass is forbidden. The document of Paul VI supposedly "promulgating" the New Mass (laws are promulgated, not missals or liturgies) actually neither commands nor permits anyone to do anything. Read it for yourself. It's just a rhetorical work full of lies and deception, such as that the New Mass is superior, reflects the true faith, and is a witness to unbroken tradition (!). The only thing it orders is that the new Missal be published.



Romano Amerio's view, Iota Unum pp. 163,164 (just in case anybody is inclined to rely upon any of the tendentious translations that have been put about by the Modernists with the aim of making Paul VI sound like a pope):
Quote:
A notable instance of this uncertainty passing from the grammatical to the juridical field is the apostolic constitution of 3 April 1969. In its final paragraph we read: Ex his quae hactenus de nova Missali Romano exposuimus, quiddam nunc cogere et efficere placet.(83) But the translations that were immediately put into circulation give the phrase this meaning: Nous voulons donner force de loi á tout ce que Nous avons exposé(4) and the Italian version: Vogliamo dare forza di legge a quanto abbiamo esposto,(85) or: Quanta abbiamo qui stabilito e ordinato, vogliamo che rimanga valido ed efficace ora e in futuro.(86)

It is not our intention to enter a philological debate on this curial, or rather papal, text, but we should note how the clarity and rigor of the curial style have been lost in a passage as important as this. Declaring ourselves incompetent to decide the philological question, we will confine ourselves to noting what seems undeniable, that is that the bad or, in Cicero’s sense, “unused” Latin prevents one immediately seizing what the legislation means, and so opens the way to opposing readings: one which sees in the formula nothing more than a stylistic flourish (but in that case it is hard to see what “conclusion” the author is referring to, as the signature and date of the document follow immediately); and another which sees an intention to give the force of law to everything which has been set out (but in that case the problem is that quiddam is not at all the same as quidquid, yet that is what the translations have assumed). A necessary consequence of the imprecision and uncertainty attending the whole business is the unpleasant fact that there are now three different official versions of the constitution, varying among themselves through additions and omissions.

83. “From the things which we have set forth regarding the new Roman Missal we now wish to sum up certain elements and draw a conclusion.”
84. Documentation Catholique, No.1541, p.517. “We wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth.”
85. OR., 12 April 1969. “We wish to give the force of law to what we have set forth.”
86. Messale Romano published by the Italian Episcopal Conference, Rome 1969. “What we have here established and ordained, we wish to remain valid and effective now and in the future.”

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:27 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Montana
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Good starting list, John. I'll enjoy reading this more as I have time.

_________________
http://www.TheFourMarks.com


Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:04 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Crisis in the Catholic Church - Explaining it
Hell Kathleen my old friend! :)

Just wanted to say hello. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.
Last bumped by Admin on Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:25 am.

Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:25 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.