Comments on Bishop Williamson's Elesion Comments CCCLXVI, the 'living magisterium' and Dogma

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« on: July 18, 2014, 09:59:41 PM »

Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.

drew

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2014, 09:06:15 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

If the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth.

Quid est veritas?

Just a few observations on H. E. Bishop Williamson's EC. He begins by pointing out that the word "magisterium" is equivocal which is good. But, then the he continues using the word indiscriminately which is not good. For clarity I think the word should be written with a capital "M," Magisterium, when it refers to the teaching office of the Church grounded in the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church. The word should be written with a very small "m," magisterium, when referring to the teaching of churchmen by virtue of their grace of state. The distinction is one of kind and not of degree. The former, either in its ordinary and universal or its extra-ordinary mode of operation, is always infallible. The fruit of this teaching is known as dogma. The revealed truth of God proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma is not the only "reality" that can be known but it is the most certain.

The claim by +Williamson that the "teacher is superior to (what is) taught, so the Magisterum's teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught," depends upon what is meant by "magisterium." It is true only if the teacher is God and the subject being taught is dogma. But if the "magisterium" is only a churchman regardless of his grace of state, the truth taught is always superior to the teacher. In this sense, the teacher and those taught are both subject to the truth. The only weapon of defense a subject has in opposition to the Master is the truth as +Williamson affirms in his last paragraph.

Rev. Cornelius a Lapide has a good and timely commentary on Luke 22:32. He says that Jesus Christ conferred two graces. One was a personal grace gifted to St. Peter in that his faith would not fail. This personal grace to St. Peter was not conferred upon his successors. The second grace was to His Church that it would never engage the Magisterium to teach error. The Pope can err in his personal magisterium and fall away from the faith but he will not be able to engage the attribute of infallibility to Magisterially teach error. His "function," as +Williamson says, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith."

Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation. That is, the truths of faith are one thing and their dogmatic formulations are another. That we can keep the truths of faith while adopting new formulations that are more receptive to the modern world.

This is wrong. The "living magisterium" may dogmatically define a doctrine but that definition is the work of God for the truths of our faith are revealed by God and not by the Magisterium. This is why it is absurd to consider changing any dogmatic formulations even for what may be considered greater clarity. Dogma is a universal truth and this does not change. The only things regarding its relationship with the changing world is that error is manifold and can corrupt and reject truth by any number of ways therefore the truth must be defended from varied assaults. But the formulation of truth does not change and does not require any reformulation any more than the universal "chair" as understood by Aristotle or St. Thomas has to be reformulated for each successive age. It is nothing but the error of Modernism to say, that the "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths." This is in fact the cause of the current crisis.

It is insupportable to argue that a "living magisterium" is necessary to reinterpret dogma for the benefit of a changing world and then appeal to "reality" as the criteria to judge whether or not the "magisterium" is or is not sufficiently faithful to the perennial truths. Our understanding of "reality" is a human approximation of truth at best and subject to error. We are far better off than the faithful who rose against Nestorius and stand on firmer ground. Their opposition was based upon the received Tradition of faith. Their defense of Catholic doctrine led to the formulation of dogma which has enriched the Church for all time. The criteria to judge is the revealed truth of dogma.

It is important to pray and offer penitential sacrifices for +Williamson that he may have clarity of thought and decisiveness in action.

Drew

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2014, 08:46:32 AM »

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Miseremini

Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

If the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth.

Quid est veritas?

Quote from: drew

Just a few observations on H. E. Bishop Williamson's EC. He begins by pointing out that the word "magisterium" is equivocal which is good. But, then the he continues using the word indiscriminately which is not good. For clarity I think the word should be written with a capital "M," Magisterium, when it refers to the teaching office of the Church grounded in the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church. The word should be written with a very small "m," magisterium, when referring to the teaching of churchmen by virtue of their grace of state. The distinction is one of kind and not of degree. The former, either in its ordinary and universal or its extra-ordinary mode of operation, is always infallible. The fruit of this teaching is known as dogma. The revealed truth of God proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma is not the only "reality" that can be known but it is the most certain.

The claim by +Williamson that the "teacher is superior to (what is) taught, so the Magisterum's teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught," depends upon what is meant by "magisterium." It is true only if the teacher is God and the subject being taught is dogma. But if the "magisterium" is only a churchman regardless of his grace of state, the truth taught is always superior to the teacher. In this sense, the teacher and those taught are both subject to the truth. The only weapon of defense a subject has in opposition to the Master is the truth as +Williamson affirms in his last paragraph.

Rev. Cornelius a Lapide has a good and timely commentary on Luke 22:32. He says that Jesus Christ conferred two graces. One was a personal grace gifted to St. Peter in that his faith would not fail. This personal grace to St. Peter was not conferred upon his successors. The second grace was to His Church that it would never engage the Magisterium to teach error. The Pope can err in his personal magisterium and fall away from the faith but he will not be able to engage the attribute of infallibility to Magisterially teach error. His "function," as +Williamson says, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith."

Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation. That is, the truths of faith are one thing and their dogmatic formulations are another. That we can keep the truths of faith while adopting new formulations that are more receptive to the modern world.

This is wrong. The "living magisterium" may dogmatically define a doctrine but that definition is the work of God for the truths of our faith are revealed by God and not by the Magisterium. This is why it is absurd to consider changing any dogmatic formulations even for what may be considered greater clarity. Dogma is a universal truth and this does not change. The only things regarding its relationship with the changing world is that error is manifold and can corrupt and reject truth by any number of ways therefore the truth must be defended from varied assaults. But the formulation of truth does not change and does not require any reformulation any more than the universal "chair" as understood by Aristotle or St. Thomas has to be reformulated for each successive age. It is nothing but the error of Modernism to say, that the "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths." This is in fact the cause of the current crisis.

It is insupportable to argue that a "living magisterium" is necessary to reinterpret dogma for the benefit of a changing world and then appeal to "reality" as the criteria to judge whether or not the "magisterium" is or is not sufficiently faithful to the perennial truths. Our understanding of "reality" is a human approximation of truth at best and subject to error. We are far better off than the faithful who rose against Nestorius and stand on firmer ground. Their opposition was based upon the received Tradition of faith. Their defense of Catholic doctrine led to the formulation of dogma which has enriched the Church for all time. The criteria to judge is revealed truth of dogma.

It is important to pray and offer penitential sacrifices for +Williamson that he may have clarity of thought and decisiveness in action.

Drew

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

I really appreciate your insightful comments, Drew. It's nice to actually have a conversation.

The definition of magister and magisterium is instructive. My Latin dictionary has the following:

magis-ter -tri m chief, master, director; teacher; advisor, guardian; ringleader, author; (in apposition with noun in the gen) expert: (keeper of animals) shepherd, herdsnman; magister equitum (title of dictator's second in command) Master of the Calvary, magister morum censor; magister sacrorum chief priest; magister vici ward boss; navis magister ship's captain

magister-ium -(i)i n dictatorship, presidency, superintendence; control, governance; instruction; magisterium morum censorship

*************
It seems to me that modern man rebels against the principle of having a master: against the principle of there being anything GOOD or BENEFICIAL in censorship; and therefore, modern man, in this willful abhorrence of the proper definition(s) of words and phrases rooted in the Latin magister, simply wants nothing to do with them.

Therein lies the rub.

Notice that the Latin word magister / magistri is a male gender noun (indicated by m), however, when you look at magisterium / magisterii it's not male but rather neuter (indicated by n). Therefore, it is sloppy scholarship to equate the connotation of magister with that of magisterium or Magisterium, because the latter is not a person, but a thing, if Latin carries any proper meaning into the adoptive language. If it does, Magisterium cannot refer to men ('men' is plural and male gender), but only to the teaching OFFICE (singular, neuter) that the men occupy. You don't say that the papacy is a man or the presidency is a man, do you?

It is one of the earmarks of post-Conciliar ambiguity to presume that there are men (plural number, male gender noun) to whom the term Magisterium (singular number, neuter noun) applies, disregarding the teaching office (neuter).

JPaul

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2014, 10:41:39 AM »

Neil Obstat,

Quote

I really appreciate your insightful comments, Drew. It's nice to actually have a conversation.

I will second that sentiment. Insights and principles which can lead to logical conclusions. Always good.

Cantarella

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2014, 10:52:01 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

The truths of the Faith once received are to be transmitted intact and unaltered. Which is to say, as it was declared or given by Christ through His Church.
There can be no need to ever reformulate what is true by the Divine Will.

All men who are of good will and seek such Truth will be granted understanding.

Quote

reformulate
  Use Reformulate in a sentence
re·for·mu·late
[ree-fawr-myuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), re·for·mu·lat·ed, re·for·mu·lat·ing.
1.
to formulate again.
2.
to formulate in a different way; alter or revise: to reformulate our plans.

The very concept of such expedient reformulation invites corruption and alteration of the truth. It should not be mentioned.

Dogmas are really truths fallen from Heaven above and must be preserved at all costs as the divine treasures they are. Catholics should not fall into the modernist error of "reformulating" dogma. Dogmatic statements say what they mean and mean what they say. There is a permanent meaning in a dogma that does not ever change. It remains unaltered for all eternity.

Pope St. Pius X explicitly condemned the proposition that dogmas are to be understood as figurative symbols. The Church understands her dogmas precisely by the very words she has once declared. Loyal Catholics must know that Catholic dogmatic statements are immutable truths of Heaven not subject for accommodation to suit the current world needs. Pope Pius X solemnly condemned this method of interpretation or re-formulation employed by the progressive Modernists, in which dogmas have a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.

Columba

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2014, 10:57:41 AM »

Quote from: drew

Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

Your term "reformulate" does not appear in the EC. Doesn't the "living magisterium" simply apply unvarying truths to contemporary situations? Vatican II fathers abused this principle to introduce ambiguity. This then served as a shield of plausible deniability for heresy.

The "living magisterium" can be defended from such abuse without it being discarded. Or if we judge this term as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2014, 12:43:40 AM »

Quote from: I made several typos when I

The definition of magister and magisterium is instructive. My Latin dictionary has the following:

magis-ter -tri m chief, master, director; teacher; adviser, guardian; ringleader, author; (in apposition with noun in the gen) expert: (keeper of animals) shepherd, herdsman; magister equitum (title of dictator's second in command) Master of the Cavalry; magister morum censor; magister sacrorum chief priest; magister vici ward boss; navis magister ship's captain

magister-ium -(i)i n directorship, presidency, superintendence; control, governance; instruction; magisterium morum censorship

****************************************
It seems to me that modern man rebels against the principle of having a master: against the principle of there being anything GOOD or BENEFICIAL in censorship; and therefore, modern man, in this willful abhorrence of the proper definition(s) of words and phrases rooted in the Latin magister, simply wants nothing to do with them.

Therein lies the rub.

Notice that the Latin word magister / magistri is a masculine gender noun (indicated by m = masculine noun), however, when you look at magisterium / magisteri / magisterii it's not masculine but rather neuter (indicated by n = neuter gender noun). Therefore, it is sloppy scholarship to equate the connotation of magister with that of magisterium or Magisterium, because the latter is not a person, but a thing (neuter gender), if Latin carries any proper meaning into the adoptive language. If it does, Magisterium cannot refer to men ('men' is plural, with masculine gender) or man (as in mankind, which includes women and children), but can only refer to the teaching OFFICE (singular number, neuter gender) that the men occupy. You don't say that the papacy is a man or the presidency is a man, do you?

Nor do we say the directorship is a man; nor do we say that the superintendence is a man; nor do we say that control is a man; nor do we say that governance or instruction or censorship is a human person (a man). [/font][/size]

.

Notice that it is unnecessary to say "a woman" or "a man or a woman," because the term "man" in such situations INCLUDES the feminine gender such that the office of directorship or superintendence or control, etc. may equally be occupied by a man or by a woman; nonetheless, superintendence never refers to the person of the superintendent, but rather to his office.

(Again, it's unnecessary to say, "his or her office," or "his/her office," or "hiser office," or "h/is/er office" or whatever, because "his office" INCLUDES the instance of it being "her office." This is where the error of feminism comes in and gender neutral language, such that feminists get all flustered and bent out of shape when a rule book for instance, refers to the principal's office as "his office" when the principal is a woman. But in proper Latin tradition AND THEREFORE likewise in proper English tradition, there is no distinction in sex when the masculine gender is used, for "his office" merely means a human being's office, instead of like a ROBOT's office, which would be NEUTER gender, and therefore "its office," but that would imply by gender neutral non-discrimination 'standards' to DEMEAN homosexuals by calling them "it" -- and we just can't abide by THAT, can we??)

It is one of the earmarks of post-Conciliar ambiguity to presume that there are men (plural number, masculine gender noun) to whom the term Magisterium (singular number, neuter noun) applies, disregarding the teaching office (neuter), or the doctrine (neuter) being taught by that office.

That is to say, that the penchant to impart a human being's identity or personhood or humanity into a neuter noun like magisterium does NOT belong to the Roman Catholic Latin Sacred Tradition AT ALL. It has ONLY arisen as a consequence of the unclean spirit of Vatican II and the abomination of removing the Church from her firm foundations in the sacred language of LATIN!

Magisteri and magisterii means the same thing, the second i being apparently a convention that is used occasionally for whatever reason (perhaps more or less commonly in ecclesiastical Latin as opposed to classical Latin), but in both cases the word is second declension Genitive singular. When such words are used in English, the declensions are ignored and the Nominative form is the basis for our words. I'm telling you this so you can see why we always say "Magisterium" in English and we never say "Magisterio" or "Magisterii" or "Magisteria," etc.

If you were using Latin, however, there are the following declensions, and therefore in Latin documents that would have words based on the Latin "magisterium" (a NEUTER noun, not a masculine noun!!) they would be declined in the documents such that you might see "magisteri" or "magisterii" or "magisterio" or "magisteria" or "magisteriis" as follows:

SECOND DECLENSION SINGULAR
Nominative . . . . . magisterium
Genetive . . . . . . . magisteri or magisterii
Dative . . . . . . . . . magisterio
Accusative . . . . . . magisterium
Ablative . . . . . . . . magisterio

SECOND DECLENSION PLURAL
Nominative . . . . . magisteria
Genetive . . . . . . . magisterium
Dative . . . . . . . . . magisteriis
Accusative . . . . . . magisteria
Ablative . . . . . . . . magisteriis

It's a bit hard to imagine that "magisteriums" (in English) would be discussed in the Church, except perhaps hypothetically, for the Church is one, and therefore has one teaching office in the unity of the faith.

Consequently, it would make logical sense that in English, if the plural form for magisterium were to be used, it would be "magisteria," and the proof of this lies in many similar Englishized Latin words, such that the proper English plural form is the Latin plural, Nominative declension. (E.g., radius, radii; appendix, appendices; basis, bases; species, species; amphora, amphorae; opus, opera)

(If it were to be so hypothetically discussed in Latin, you would then see the words in the second group, "Plural" being used, "magisteria" and "magisteriis," whenever the Nominative, Dative, Accusative or Ablative declensions are appropriate, and in the plural number, "magisterium" would be for the Genetive declension, not the Nominative declension, and therefore, English words, which are derived from the Nominative declension, plural number would logically be "magisteria" instead of "magisterium." But again, the words English borrows from Latin ignores declensions, and when we talk about more than one magisterium we simply put an "s" on the end for the plural number: "magisteriums." That is not how Latin EVER indicates plural. In English translations and in proper English original writing, it is ONLY found in Englishized Latin words. I don't know about other non-Latin languages, especially Romance languages such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian and Italian. If any reader here knows, please chime in and pronounce the relevant convention(s).)

Therefore, when you see messages or writings of pundits or bigots or know-it-alls mentioning "magisteriums" you should immediately recognize it as a RED FLAG that something might be haywire. The Church does not have one magisterium before Vat.II and another one after Vat.II, for example. There is no "traditional magisterium and modern magisterium."

Perhaps one might say "Modernist magisterium," but that would seem to be dangerous, because to begin with, all too many Catholics have no idea what "Modernist" means in the first place, and so they might likely think that your 'modernist magisterium' is some kind of compliment when in fact you were trying to criticize Modernist leanings in what SHOULD be the Magisterium, but might not be in fact, or whatever.

If you've made it this far and you still think you know what I'm talking about, perhaps you may have thought of asking another question very pertinent to this thread which I have not mentioned.......

..............Yet..............

Columba

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2014, 06:35:01 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Frances

Quote from: Columba

:dancing-banana:
Check Fr. Chazal's letter in the July 2014 Recusant. He explains it in detail.

I am familiar with the newly-coined term Theanalogizer, but am still unsatisfied with your response. Fr. Chazal uses Theanalogizer to negatively categorize Menzingen errors that he or somebody else has already refuted. You employed Theanalogizer against my post defending +Williamson without attempting any argument against it, or rather, in lieu of an argument.

Drew misleadingly used variations on the term "reformulate" three times to criticize +Williamson. J.Paul responded to Drew as if he believed +Williamson was really advocating the reformulation of doctrine. It appears that Drew's use of "reformulate" had the effect of a successful straw-man gambit upon J.Paul. This may have been unintentional by Drew, but I saw a need to correct the error.

Your response further confuse the issue instead of helping to clear it up.

EC's should not be held above criticism but neither should they be subjected to logical fallacy (even if unintentional).

That is a mistaken impression. I formulated my comment upon the words of the Bishop,

Quote

the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths.

I commented that the explanation and presentation of the perennial Faith needs no varying, "all the time". The truth is attractive to the men of good will because it is the truth, and the explanations of old are perfectly sufficient today.

Drew had nothing to do with my conclusion.

Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

A better criticism might be made without introducing a loaded term that appears nowhere within the EC.

drew

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2014, 07:22:44 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: drew

Columba:

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

"Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."

Well, if the "Masters" must "vary all the time" the "unvarying truths" there is a problem. It ultimately means that we follow the "Masters" and not the "truths." I have called this change in "presentation" a "reformulation" of those truths. I do not think that this is an unfair characterization of what is being said.

EC is not intended as a theological treatise and I am not a theologian anyway, so I am not trying to make any accusation against +Williamson, whom I personally like and respect very much, based upon an informal communication such as EC. However, I have exchanged communications with Bishop Williamson in the past regarding my concerns about two points that I know to be absolutely essential to the defense of the Catholic faith. The first is the primacy and immutability of dogma, and the second is the fact that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not, and cannot be, matters of mere discipline.

The "unvarying truths" are just that. They are the dogmatic formulations that constitute the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. They are expressed in the form of universal categorical propositions that can only be always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. They are revealed truths from God Himself and it is because He reveals them that we believe them. No human authority whatsoever has the right to "vary all the time" these "unvarying truths." The function of the Church authority, as Bishop Williamson said, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith" and the faithful "exposition" of doctrine is what dogma is. And this faithful exposition is infallibly true because it is the work of the Holy Ghost which Jesus Christ promised to His Church, "the Spirit of truth... (that) will teach you all truth..... he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you." (John 16:13-15) Dogma is the Holy Ghost "shewing" the "truth." To claim that the infallible "exposition" requires further non-infallible "exposition" by a "living magisterium" is to destroy the very idea of infallibility. This is why the Church has taught that dogma is suitable for all the faithful. Its tools for understanding are correct grammar and proper definition of terms, not a necessary theological competency.

The term "living magisterium" is not a legitimate theological term but rather a neologism employed to further an ideology. I am not aware of it having any historical usage before 1900. Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, S.J. may have actually coined the term. He was the theological expert who wrote "Tradition and the Living Magisterium" for the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. He is also the author of the book, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?, in which he distinguishes between the soul of the Church and the Body of the Church and places schismatics, heretics, infidels, pagans, etc., on the road of salvation because they are members of the soul of the Church. This theology was officially articulated in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney's defense of the dogma EENS.

Quote from: Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J.

We see that a soul may belong to the Church in desire, without suspecting at all that there is such a thing as a Church… Is it not this desire that we spontaneously recognise in the case of our separated brethren, for example, in the case of Anglicans and the orthodox Russians, when we see them adhering to Christ by faith and by works of faith, yet all the while in invincible ignorance of the exclusive rights of the Roman Church? They are faithful sheep, yet they wander, unconsciously it is true, in the midst of a strange flock; but we regard them as members of the true flock of Christ because at heart, despite their errors, they are in the sheepfold of Christ. The same is the case, other things being equal, with those who live outside all visible relation with Christ of any of the Christian sects.” Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?(Chap. 6, pp. 57-58)

Quote from: Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J.

Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. [.....] There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Tradition and the Living Magisterium," entry written by Fr. Jean Bainvel

Fr. Bainvel employs the "living magisterium" in the "progress of dogma" so that the "immutable truths" that the Church has once dogmatically defined as necessary for salvation including Church membership, explicit faith, reception of the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, are now understood with"a new expression which is in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within the reach of contemporary minds." If the term, "living magisterium" actually conveyed a legitimate concept rather than just a propaganda tool in the service of an ideology there would be common theological terms that formulate contrary concepts, like "dead magisterium" and "sick magisterium" etc. The term has come into common usage as a tool to justify 'varying all the time the unvarying truths' and deserves to be discarded.

The modernists theologically now argue that dogma is analogous to a living plant, like an oak tree, which changes over time yet remains the same tree. They say that the form of dogma is the perennial doctrinal truth and the matter is the historical language. The language is regarded as accidental to the dogma and thus any change of formulation is only an accidental change. This is what Pope John XXIII said at the opening of Vatican II which was approvingly referenced by Benedict XVI in his "hermeneutic of continuity" theology. If this characterization is accepted, it is the end of faith. As St. Pius X said, "they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas." (Lamentabili). For example:

Quote from: Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P.

Citing Newman to support the fact that Catholic doctrine is developed according to the principle of analogy, I made the comparison with the way in which a plant or any living being grows: we have here that continuity in progress of which the Pope speaks. But this conjunction of continuity (permanence) and progress (change) is understood only if we consider the fact that a living being develops and evolves according to the principle of analogy; indeed, the merit of thinking by analogy is that it unites the identical (one) and the different (many).
If, instead, we stop at only a univocal type of thought, that conjunction
seems to us absurd and contradictory. In fact, for univocity development does not make the new rise from the old, but adds the new to the old without it becoming new. The growth of a living being—and thought is a vital phenonemon—is not like the construction of a building with some bricks, by which one floor is added to another, but is as if a building, already complete in itself from the beginning, were augmented in volume with the passage of time.
Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P., The Infallibility of Vatican II

The deposit of faith is no longer a deposit to be faithfully guarded and handed on but is now a "living being" that "evolves according to the principle of analogy." "To be” is replaced with “becoming;” the objective truth with changing subjective perceptions of that truth. The faith, according to these lights, will be better known by our children just as we know it better than our parents. This is nothing but a formula to destroy the faith.

Quote from: St. Pius X, [i

Lamentabili 22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. CONDEMNED

The Magisterium is the office of the Church that corresponds to the attribute of infallibility. Living men occupy this office and can engage this power to teach infallibly. The living men change but the office and the power remains. When the truth is revealed is has a universal character. The understanding of that truth may be enriched but ultimately the objects of faith are not self-evident to the intellect. They are truths that the will by supernatural faith submits to. Our faith is incarnational and the formal objects of our faith are "truths fallen from heaven." It is God Himself who has formulated these truths.

Quote from: Columba

If we judge this term (living magisterium) as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?

The application of "unvarying truths to contemporary situations" is the field of moral theology and the Church has always done this from the beginning without employing the term "living magisterium." It is what every Catholic does to insure that he acts with conscience that is both true and certain. The correct application of unvarying principles to changing "situations" is what we are "to do" to save our souls. But, the universal truths of faith are not contextualized by any historical "situation." They are objective truths revealed by God that are the formal objects of supernatural faith. They are what we are "to know" and must know to save our souls.

Quote from: Pope St. Pius X

We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine.[......] It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. [.....] Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." [......] We pray and entreat you to reflect on the great loss of souls due solely to ignorance of divine things. St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis

The only thing still needed for salvation after faith and keeping the commandments is "to be" a child of God and that grace is given to us in the sacrament of Baptism.

Drew

JPaul

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2014, 09:41:30 PM »

Columba,

Quote

I made my point about this in a post which preceded Drew's observation. My comment to Drew was simply agreeing with his analysis.

As an aside, what was in a sense "loaded", was the introduction of the concept of " to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. "

This skirts much too close to the pregnant verbiage of the Council, which would have taken these sentences and applied them in and entirely different manner than the Bishop obviously intended.

This is an area where one cannot be careless with terms and language. Vatican II has a definition of Living Tradition which is heretical, confusing, and subversive, and this has made it imperative that one make clear distinctions when discussing or speaking of this idea and using these words.

I do not believe that the implication which Drew observed is unfounded or incorrect.

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2014, 06:29:59 AM »

.
BRAVO, Drew! . . . . . . . .

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: drew

Columba:

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

"Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J.

Fr. Bainvel employs the "living magisterium" in the "progress of dogma" so that the "immutable truths" that the Church has once dogmatically defined as necessary for salvation including Church membership, explicit faith, reception of the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, are now understood with"a new expression which is in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within the reach of contemporary minds." If the term, "living magisterium" actually conveyed a legitimate concept rather than just a propaganda tool in the service of an ideology there would be common theological terms that formulate contrary concepts, like "dead magisterium" and "sick magisterium" etc. The term has come into common usage as a tool to justify 'varying all the time the unvarying truths' and deserves to be discarded.

The modernists theologically now argue that dogma is analogous to a living plant, like an oak tree, which changes over time yet remains the same tree. They say that the form of dogma is the perennial doctrinal truth and the matter is the historical language. The language is regarded as accidental to the dogma and thus any change of formulation is only an accidental change. This is what Pope John XXIII said at the opening of Vatican II which was approvingly referenced by Benedict XVI in his "hermeneutic of continuity" theology. If this characterization is accepted, it is the end of faith. As St. Pius X said, "they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas." (Lamentabili). For example:

Quote from: Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P.

Citing Newman to support the fact that Catholic doctrine is developed according to the principle of analogy, I made the comparison with the way in which a plant or any living being grows: we have here that continuity in progress of which the Pope speaks. But this conjunction of continuity (permanence) and progress (change) is understood only if we consider the fact that a living being develops and evolves according to the principle of analogy; indeed, the merit of thinking by analogy is that it unites the identical (one) and the different (many).
If, instead, we stop at only a univocal type of thought, that conjunction seems to us absurd and contradictory. In fact, for univocity development does not make the new rise from the old, but adds the new to the old without it becoming new. The growth of a living being—and thought is a vital phenonemon—is not like the construction of a building with some bricks, by which one floor is added to another, but is as if a building, already complete in itself from the beginning, were augmented in volume with the passage of time.
Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P., The Infallibility of Vatican II

The deposit of faith 'is no longer' a deposit to be faithfully guarded and handed on, but 'is now' a "living being" that "evolves according to the principle of analogy."

“To be” [would then be] replaced with “becoming;”
the objective truth [would then be replaced] with changing subjective perceptions of that truth.
The faith, according to these lights, will be better known by our children
just as we know it better than our parents.

This is nothing but a formula to destroy the faith.

Quote

Quote from: St. Pius X, [i

Quote from: Columba

If we judge this term (living magisterium) as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?

Quote from: Pope St. Pius X

The only thing still needed for salvation after faith and keeping the commandments is "to be" a child of God and that grace is given to us in the sacrament of Baptism.

Drew

Your familiarity with the less-frequently cited documents of Pope St. Pius X is impressive, and I really appreciate their reference in this appropriate context.

Acerbo Nimis and Lamentabili sane are both appropriate and well worth reviewing so as to bolster our understanding of Church doctrine in regards to Church doctrine.

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2014, 06:41:39 AM »

.
Sacrorum Antistitum should not be overlooked in this context, as well.

Its contents includes The Oath Against Modernism, which was the manifestation of enforcement of Pope St. Pius X's lifetime of study and courageous defense of the Catholic Faith, after the preceding 7 years of his pontificate.

In retrospect, it is astounding how much he achieved in a mere 11 years, when you compare that to the 14 years of Paul VI, the 8 years of Benedict XVI, and 26 years of JPII.

Pope St. Pius X rose up, laid down the law, defended the Faith, and left a legacy that has endured for a century, all in 11 years. Meanwhile, the Modernists whom he battled have been hard at work to destroy his work ever since he laid it down.

It's our duty to make sure it's not left unappreciated.

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2014, 07:30:13 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Columba,

Quote

Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

Correction: It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

This is an example of when clarity offends, maybe the reason for having taken any offense ought to be examined a little more honestly.

Quote

A better criticism might be made without introducing a loaded term that appears nowhere within the EC.

The term "reformulate" does not HAVE to be in the EC in order for it to be appropriate, my friend. This is why our ability to T-H-I-N-K is so important. If you put your thinking cap on a shelf every time you read certain things, you won't be able to know what it is you're reading.

Fellayites do this when they blindly read DICI and sspx.org, and they refuse to discuss the content thereof. Are we going to follow suit and hold every EC to be somehow above reproach? It seems to me that +W would be likely to appreciate our concern rather than to 'feel offended' by our studied application of Catholic principles using our sensus catholicus. Maybe you've forgotten that +Williamson himself warned us to be careful, and to WATCH, and to not hold everything he says up as some kind of irreproachable icon of purity.

IOW, it's time to grow up now.

Quote

I made my point about this in a post which preceded Drew's observation. My comment to Drew was simply agreeing with his analysis.

As an aside, what was in a sense "loaded", was the introduction of the concept of "to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."

This skirts much too closely to the pregnant verbiage of the Council, which would have taken these sentences and applied them, in an entirely different manner than the Bishop obviously intended.

This is an area where one cannot be careless with terms and language. Vatican II [implies] a definition of Living Tradition which is heretical, confusing, and subversive, ..

I added the word [implies] in brackets, replacing your "has" because Vat.II didn't have any definitions of anything, let alone "Living Tradition." Vat.II was NON-DEFINITIVE, and deliberately so. Its proponents even announced this repeatedly. There is nothing definitive in Vat.II, they said. Nor did Vat.II contain any condemnation of error. And it was clear from DAY ONE that there was no intention of the Pope to hold a Council that would so much as TOUCH on the condemnation of error, per se. They were all about applying the "medicine of mercy" in LIEU of condemning error, all the while forgetting an important fact: mercy is not medicine.

But, I digress...........

Quote

..and this has made it imperative that one make clear distinctions when discussing or speaking of this idea and using these words.

I do not believe that the implication which Drew observed is unfounded or incorrect.

When it comes to matters of doctrine, playing fast and loose with language is a HUGE problem.

The ECs are not authoritative Church documents nor are they theological treatises. However, they are newsletters from a bishop to his flock in the Faith, and therefore, when the topic is Church doctrine, every word is important. It would be better for H.E. to SHELVE the thing and wait a week, and for him to write something else for now, and think it over for a few days, rather than disseminate a tract peppered with "loaded" terminology like this one is, which see.

And it is not inappropriate for us to take meet notice of such an instance, with due respect. We're in the thick of an ideological war with the Menzingen Modernists et. al., and we cannot afford to let our guard down one iota when it comes to doctrine.

drew

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2014, 04:28:41 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Neil Obstat

should not be overlooked

Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?

The accusation of "schism" is a serious charge. You have leveled it against anyone who would regard Bishop Williamson as a shepherd to a "flock" of faithful Catholics. This accusation is wholly without merit. We can only be grateful that your mouth is not a gun.

St. Pius X in says Pascendi that, “Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship; hence, the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic and liturgical” (emphasis his). This "triple authority" is derived respectively from the three-fold attributes that God has endowed His Church: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. It is important to remember always that these primarily are necessary properties of, and belong to, the Church by nature, and only secondarily and accidentally to individual churchmen.

The purpose of the “directing authority” (i.e. disciplinary) is to direct the Church “toward the common end” which are “doctrine” (dogmatic) and “worship” (liturgical). The exercise of "authority" outside of these ends, or in opposition to these ends, cannot be done with any legitimacy. No Catholic can morally give obedience to any law, command, directive, etc. that harms the faith or leads to the loss of salvation of souls.

The faithful have a right to the sacraments and the true doctrine of the faith because God has imposed upon them the duty to know and believe His revealed truth and to worship Him in the public forum according to the "received and approved rites of the Church." These "rights" of the faithful impose duties upon priests who hold ordinary jurisdiction but whenever these clerics prove to be unfaithful priest and fail in their duties, the faithful are free to seek from others their rights that are necessary to fulfill their obligations to God, and any priest is free to assume these responsibilities even in disobedience to any holding lawful jurisdiction. The Church then provides a supplied jurisdiction to these priest because of the needs of the faithful. If the faithful "flock" look to Bishop Williamson as a shepherd after receiving only "stones" and "serpents" from their ordinaries that cannot, in and of itself, constitute a schismatic act.

Furthermore, schism is canonically defined as “the withdrawal of submission (subiectionis detrectatio) to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”(Canon 751). An English translation of Canon 751 which defines schism as “refusal of subjection”, or “refusal to be subject”, to the Supreme Pontiff, would be an accurate translation of the Latin.

Although every act of schism is an act of disobedience, not every act of disobedience is an act of schism. Since the canon 751 does not say that partial withdrawal of submission is enough to qualify as schism, we should presume that the withdrawal has to be complete, both materially and formally, in order to be guilty of the offense of schism. Why? Because, the more lenient interpretation of Canon 751 is in harmony with the canonical principle expressed in Canon 18 of the Code: “Laws which impose a penalty . . . are to be interpreted strictly.” Canon 18 means that whenever a penal law should require interpretation — as does Canon 1364, §1 in prescribing excommunication for “schism” — the correct interpretation will be that which employs a definition which favors charity to the accused. Only those actions which clearly and indisputably qualify as offenses are understood to violate the law in question.

Canon 17 states that when there is some obscurity in the meaning of a law, “there must be recourse [on the part of the interpreter] to parallel places, if there be any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.” There are no “parallel places,” other than Canon 751 that explain what schism is. However, there are twenty-nine canons between Canon 1365 and Canon 1397 which implicitly explain clearly what schism is not. Specifically, these canons prescribe lesser penalties than excommunication for multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to a local ordinary. Since schism does incur excommunication, it logically follows that there are multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to the local ordinary, which do not reach the very grave level of schism.

Canon 17 also stipulates that in interpreting a given canon, recourse “to the mind of the legislator” should be done. In Canon 751 it is evident that the mind of the legislator closely follows the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas because the definition of schism in Canon 751 is it taken almost verbatim from him. In the Summa Theologiæ, IIa IIæ, Q. 39, a.1: St. Thomas says, “schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Consequently, the context for the definition of schism by St. Thomas is highly pertinent for an exact interpretation of Canon 751.

St. Thomas makes it clear that schism is a particular kind of disobedience, a distinct kind of sin.

Quote from: St. Thomas

"Objection 2: Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) 'is disobedience against the heavenly commandments.' Therefore every sin is a schism." St. Thomas replies (Q. 39, a.1, ad 2) that the "essence of schism is in rebelliously disobeying [the Church’s] commandments. I say ‘rebelliously’ because the schismatic shows obstinate scorn for the Church’s commandments and refuses to submit to her judgment. Not every sinner does that; and so not every sin is schism.” The specific examples given by St. Thomas in Q. 39, a 2.1, taken from the book of Numbers 16:30 and II Kings 17, make it clear that "rebelliously" is to be understood in the strict meaning of the term, as when subjects reject completely the authority of the lawful leader. In the passage from the Book of Numbers, Core, Dathan, and Abiron, their followers, families and all their possessions were swallowed up by the earth in punishment for their total rejection of the authority of Moses. These men "stood up against Moses and Aaron, (and) they said: 'Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?'" The rebellion of Core repudiated the entire authority of Moses to rule. In the second example, St. Thomas mentions the ten tribes of Israel under Jeroboam, who completely separated themselves rejecting the legitimate authority of Reboam, the King of Judah who was the son of Solomon in the line of King David (I Kings 12: 26-33).

Every authoritative theologian after St. Thomas follows his criterion for the definition of schism. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says that: “not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include, besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”). Likewise, the magisterial Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), possibly the greatest compendium of orthodox Catholic theology, explains the difference between heresy and schism:

Quote from: Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique

"Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan (commenting on St. Thomas' definition of schism) makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cum quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat)."
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique

The last clause in the above citation from DTC — “even while believing that he is [a lawful superior]”— makes it clear that he is referring to "formal schism." "Material schism" is committed by all those — and only those — who completely reject the authority per se of a lawful superior. But the offense becomes formal only in the case of those who do so with malice, that is, when knowing that the superior in question is in fact lawful, but nonetheless refusing absolutely to submit to his authority in any way.

In fine, the consensus of every authoritative theologian is that the only kind of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, a fortiori to the local ordinary, which constitutes material schism is the total repudiation of the Pope’s authority wherein one denies his duty to obey anything at all which he commands. It is the denial of papal jurisdiction per se. Then, in order for the schism to be formal as well as material, and thus, culpable before God, it is necessary for the offender to be acting in bad conscience, out of pride or passion, which leads him to suppress and deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over himself, while knowing deep down that he is committing a sin in doing so. That is, he must be acting with malice and/or culpable negligence.

Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny and a grave sin against charity and justice. If any faithful member of Jesus Christ's Catholic "flock," wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so until such time as those exercising ordinary jurisdiction do so in a manner directed to the proper ends of the Church that St. Pius said are "doctrine and worship."

Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome. For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets, he has made accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity." He will soon learn that obedience in and of itself is not a virtue at all unless it is regulated by the virtue of Religion.

Drew

P.S. The canonical and moral definition of schism is largely taken from the work of Fr. Brian Harrison which was used by Fr. Samuel Waters in his defense sent to Rome against the charge made by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia against Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission. The exchanges between Fr. Waters and Philadelphia and Rome are published on the Mission web page.

Columba

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2014, 05:12:53 PM »

Quote from: drew

It ultimately means that we follow the "Masters" and not the "truths." I have called this change in "presentation" a "reformulation" of those truths. I do not think that this is an unfair characterization of what is being said.

What you say here is within the bounds of a legitimate argument, but you previously made no such justification.

Quote from: drew in previous post

One might argue for the interpretation of the EC as a call for reformulation, but your casual introduction of the term amounted to an unsupported assertion.

Columba

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2014, 05:32:24 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: J.Paul

Columba,

Quote

Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

Correction: It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

After seeing Drew's post, I had to review the EC because I thought I must have missed "reformulate" in my first reading. When I realized that the loaded term was not in fact there, I felt personally misled. When I saw J.Paul and Cantarella repeating the charge as if it was established fact, I assumed they had been similarly misled but had failed to reread the EC.

I am not offended by anyone making a case that the EC proposes reformulation, but I do protest bald assertion made without an argument because it is a very serious charge.

JPaul

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2014, 07:59:27 AM »

Quote

You did not use "reformulate" in any post prior to Drew's. Closely following his seamless introduction of the term into this thread, you literally built your next post around "reformulate," even going so far as quote the dictionary definition.

"Reformulate" is loaded because Drew used that term for tying the EC to the founding document of the present crisis:

John XXIII Vatican II Opening Address said:
What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms.

Why endlessly repeat such a loaded term if H.E.'s own words were sufficient for condemnation.

I made my point about this problem, well before drew's post.

My comment after his post was due to the fact that the thrust of his analysis was dead on regardless of the term which he used, which by the way, is a an accurate description of the terms used by the Bishop. Both terms essentially convey the same meaning without a qualifier inserted.

It is neither drew's fault or my own that this word is a hallmark of the modernists, and as such, is a loaded term.

The fault lies with H.E. for using such a concept without a proper distinction to limit the meaning.

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2014, 09:12:00 AM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: J.Paul

Columba,

Quote

Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

Correction: It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

If you want to get upset about something, find a more reasonable topic.

Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie. Own it.

Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2014, 10:18:52 AM »

.
Drew, thanks for all the support, but you might enjoy being informed that petwerp is under the delusion that I bother to read his stupid posts.

Quote from: drew

Quote from: petwerp

Quote from: Neil Obstat

should not be overlooked

Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

And he is furthermore under the delusion that I could possibly care less what he thinks, because I couldn't. HAHAHAHAHA

Quote

He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?

The problem petwerp has is shooting his mouth off when nobody's listening.

Quote from: drew

St. Pius X in says Pascendi that, “Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship; hence, the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic and liturgical” (emphasis his). This "triple authority" is derived respectively from the three-fold attributes that God has endowed His Church: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. It is important to remember always that these primarily are necessary properties of, and belong to, the Church by nature, and only secondarily and accidentally to individual churchmen.

The purpose of the “directing authority” (i.e. disciplinary) is to direct the Church “toward the common end” which are “doctrine” (dogmatic) and “worship” (liturgical). The exercise of "authority" outside of these ends, or in opposition to these ends, cannot be done with any legitimacy. No Catholic can morally give obedience to any law, command, directive, etc. that harms the faith or leads to the loss of salvation of souls.

The faithful have a right to the sacraments and the true doctrine of the faith because God has imposed upon them the duty to know and believe His revealed truth and to worship Him in the public forum according to the "received and approved rites of the Church." These "rights" of the faithful impose duties upon priests who hold ordinary jurisdiction but whenever these clerics prove to be unfaithful priest and fail in their duties, the faithful are free to seek from others their rights that are necessary to fulfill their obligations to God, and any priest is free to assume these responsibilities even in disobedience to any holding lawful jurisdiction. The Church then provides a supplied jurisdiction to these priest because of the needs of the faithful. If the faithful "flock" look to Bishop Williamson as a shepherd after receiving only "stones" and "serpents" from their ordinaries that cannot, in and of itself, constitute a schismatic act.

It's nice for you to bring up supplied jurisdiction, but please keep in mind that petwerp, while he's probably CAPABLE of understanding the principle at least on a natural level, is nonetheless invincibly ignorant of its application due to his pertinacious and abiding zeal for being stupid on such matters.

So, it's like you're talking to a wall of Z-Bricks.

Quote from: drew

Furthermore, schism is canonically defined as “the withdrawal of submission (subiectionis detrectatio) to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”(Canon 751). An English translation of Canon 751 which defines schism as “refusal of subjection”, or “refusal to be subject”, to the Supreme Pontiff, would be an accurate translation of the Latin.

Although every act of schism is an act of disobedience, not every act of disobedience is an act of schism.

At this point you can rest assured that petwerp is entirely lost. He would never have read this far. But I do appreciate your detail, distinction and follow-through. Thank you!

Quote from: drew

Since the canon 751 does not say that partial withdrawal of submission is enough to qualify as schism, we should presume that the withdrawal has to be complete, both materially and formally, in order to be guilty of the offense of schism. Why? Because, the more lenient interpretation of Canon 751 is in harmony with the canonical principle expressed in Canon 18 of the Code: “Laws which impose a penalty . . . are to be interpreted strictly.” Canon 18 means that whenever a penal law should require interpretation — as does Canon 1364, §1 in prescribing excommunication for “schism” — the correct interpretation will be that which employs a definition which favors charity to the accused. Only those actions which clearly and indisputably qualify as offenses are understood to violate the law in question.

Canon 17 states that when there is some obscurity in the meaning of a law, “there must be recourse [on the part of the interpreter] to parallel places, if there be any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.” There are no “parallel places,” other than Canon 751 that explain what schism is. However, there are twenty-nine canons between Canon 1365 and Canon 1397 which implicitly explain clearly what schism is not. Specifically, these canons prescribe lesser penalties than excommunication for multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to a local ordinary. Since schism does incur excommunication, it logically follows that there are multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to the local ordinary, which do not reach the very grave level of schism.

Canon 17 also stipulates that in interpreting a given canon, recourse “to the mind of the legislator” should be done. In Canon 751 it is evident that the mind of the legislator closely follows the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas because the definition of schism in Canon 751 is it taken almost verbatim from him. In the Summa Theologiæ, IIa IIæ, Q. 39, a.1: St. Thomas says, “schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Consequently, the context for the definition of schism by St. Thomas is highly pertinent for an exact interpretation of Canon 751.

St. Thomas makes it clear that schism is a particular kind of disobedience, a distinct kind of sin.

Quote from: St. Thomas

Quote from: Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique

Well said! I wholeheartedly agree.

And then regarding the SGBF, the coveting of ordinary jurisdiction, arguably sinful:

Quote

[SG] Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome. For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets, he has made accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity." He will soon learn that obedience in and of itself is not a virtue at all unless it is regulated by the virtue of Religion.

Drew

P.S. The canonical and moral definition of schism is largely taken from the work of Fr. Brian Harrison which was used by Fr. Samuel Waters in his defense sent to Rome against the charge made by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia against Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission. The exchanges between Fr. Waters and Philadelphia and Rome are published on the Mission web page.

For those who are not quite up to speed (not including petwerp because he doesn't WANT to get up to speed), making accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity" (of Benedict XVI) amounts to ecclesiastical insanity, moral insanity, and all-around insanity. In the Psalms and in the Te Deum, we pray, "Non confudar in aeternum." Well, making accommodations to the hermeneutic of continuity is tantamount to saying,

"Please, I want to be confounded in eternity, so dear God, let me be so confounded."

IOW, it is the total inversion of the Prayers of the Church, turning them on their head.

But petwerp won't understand that, nor does he want to. He'll no doubt prove the veracity of that, soon enough.

peterp

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #56 on: August 01, 2014, 08:35:28 PM »

Drew,

What you copied is really irrelevant and your assertions of me lying and your comments about Bp. Fellay are themselves calumnious.

A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction. That is why I qualified what I wrote with "If", "truly" viz. do you really understand what you are saying? Only a diocesan bishop has a flock. His auxiliaries do not, the Society bishops do not and Bp. Williamson does not. Indeed, both Bp. Tissier de Mallarias and Abp. Lefebvre have both made it clear that no jurisdiction was ever conferred and that any jurisdiction which does exist is only with the individual.

A bishop's flock includes a clerical-flock as well as a lay-flock. This obviously implies a hierarchy. Fr. Chazel has already hinted at this a priest is nothing without a bishop [or words to that effect] and it is clear that resistance priests do regard him as their head (even if only informally). Whereas the Society and Bp. Lefebvre always made clear that they were not establishing a parallel hierarchy. Indeed not only is, for example, Bp. Tissier de Mallarias subject to the authority of the US District Superior, but also the prior of the Chicago priory.

Bp. Williamson has already stated "It seems that, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church ..."; he is clearly telling everyone to abandon and refuse any link to the hierarchy. Presuming he believes what he says: there ought to be no hierarchy and I'll do my best to dismantle it.

I do not believe for one minute, anyone with a basic grounding - yes even a N.O. Grounding - in Catholicism cannot fail to smell the stench of protestantism in what Bp. Williamson has done and is doing.

So yes, if you all believe that Bp. Williamson has a flock, in the true sense, that is schismatic.

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon.

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.

Charity, justice etc. I won't hold my breath waiting...

JPaul

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #57 on: August 01, 2014, 09:03:58 PM »

Columba,

Quote

How do I know Drew's initial introduction of the term "reformulate" was misleading? Because it had that effect on me. Initially it appeared that J.Paul and Cantarella were similarly misled, although J.Paul appears to have subsequently denied this for himself.

To eliminate all speculation, I was not misled at all. I agreed with his use of the term due to the fact that it characterized what the Bishop said perfectly, and thus I commented using his term. Drew's meaning and intent was very clear. It was not confusing and it was not misleading, to me, and while I cannot speak for Canterella, I believe that she too, grasped his intended point as well.

drew

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #60 on: August 02, 2014, 07:01:42 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Drew,What you copied is really irrelevant and your assertions of me lying and your comments about Bp. Fellay are themselves calumnious.

What exactly are you claiming was "copied" in my last post? Every source drawn from was attributed, but beyond the attributions, the composition was my own. As to its relevancy if you did not see it then you did not understand the problem with your unjustifiable accusations against Neil Obstat.

Next, exactly where did I call you a "liar" in my last post? The word is not even used in my post. And lastly, if you are accusing anyone of "calumny," which is a grave sin, you have to do two things: establish a lie and prove the lie is intentional for the purpose of damaging the reputation of another, neither of which you have done. In fact, to charge someone with "calumny" without producing evidence of calumny is in fact a good example of what calumny is.

Quote from: peterp

A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction. That is why I qualified what I wrote with "If", "truly" viz. do you really understand what you are saying? Only a diocesan bishop has a flock. His auxiliaries do not, the Society bishops do not and Bp. Williamson does not. Indeed, both Bp. Tissier de Mallarias and Abp. Lefebvre have both made it clear that no jurisdiction was ever conferred and that any jurisdiction which does exist is only with the individual.

A bishop's flock includes a clerical-flock as well as a lay-flock. This obviously implies a hierarchy. Fr. Chazel has already hinted at this a priest is nothing without a bishop [or words to that effect] and it is clear that resistance priests do regard him as their head (even if only informally). Whereas the Society and Bp. Lefebvre always made clear that they were not establishing a parallel hierarchy. Indeed not only is, for example, Bp. Tissier de Mallarias subject to the authority of the US District Superior, but also the prior of the Chicago priory.

What your previous post indicated is that you have no idea about the moral or legal denotations and connotations of the word, schism. You made the accusation, which is of grave matter, against Neil Obstat, that he was "schismatic." I have assumed that you have acted out of ignorance, which does not excuse but only mitigates the fault. But after my last post you can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse, therefore, the moral imputation is a much more serious matter. If after reading my last post you can do one of two things. Apologize to Neil Obstat and retract the accusation or prove it.

You are treating jurisdiction as if it is created by positive law. IT is not. Jurisdiction exists in God's Church because of the nature of the Church God created. It follows from the attribute of Authority He has endowed His Church. Positive law simply regulates how jurisdiction is normally exercised. It does not create it nor does it destroy it. IT is obvious that Archbishop Lefebvre did not legally establish "jurisdiction" because he does not possess the competency to do so. But, that is in fact irrelevant except as it applies to Bishop Fellay.

Since Bishop Fellay is already exercising canonical "jurisdiction" upon members of the SSPX the obvious question should be, Who gave it to him and when did it happen? Was it when he made the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity?

Quote from: peterp

Bp. Williamson has already stated "It seems that, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church ..."; he is clearly telling everyone to abandon and refuse any link to the hierarchy. Presuming he believes what he says: there ought to be no hierarchy and I'll do my best to dismantle it.

I do not believe for one minute, anyone with a basic grounding - yes even a N.O. Grounding - in Catholicism cannot fail to smell the stench of protestantism in what Bp. Williamson has done and is doing.

So yes, if you all believe that Bp. Williamson has a flock, in the true sense, that is schismatic.

It is difficult to believe that you are serious in attempting to make this argument. Nothing is properly defined, nothing affirmed is proven and, even if we were to make the assumption that your propositions are true, the conclusions do not necessarily follow. The only conclusions that can be drawn from your argument are about you.

Just because +Williamson does not assume jurisdiction does not prevent him from exercising it upon those who ask it from him. Nor is failing to assume jurisdiction evidence of "protestantism" or desire to "dismantle" the hierarchy of the Church. In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable. It does not follow that a specific violation of law that governs ordinary jurisdiction is evidence of schism. There are numerous historical examples that can be cited to prove this but reason alone should easily make the case. Why do you suppose that a SSPX or Resistance priest can validly remit sins in the sacrament of Penance today? The law of the Church requires jurisdiction for validity of the sacrament. How then do you suppose that is jurisdiction applied? Does the priest hearing a confession then become schismatic by doing so? It is through the rights of the penitent that jurisdiction is supplied to the priest.

Quote from: peterp

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon.

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.

Charity, justice etc. I won't hold my breath waiting...

"Soon"? It is immaterial if it occurs sooner or later, but that it will occur has already been determined. What is material is that the theological objections that would prevent it have been removed. They were removed a long time ago. The entire secretive GREC discussions, which began in 1997, presuppose acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity." Furthermore, the doctrinal discussions with Rome do so as well. The evidence that proves this is that there was no demands from the SSPX for any dogmatic clarification of modern doctrinal teachings. It never happened. Romans are not dummies. They would have never entered into discussions if that had any real concerns that +Fellay would actually appeal to dogma.

Next time you see +Bishop Fellay ask him about the 1989 Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity. You should not be surprised to learn that he made it long ago.

Drew

Neil Obstat

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #61 on: August 03, 2014, 03:45:53 AM »

Your whole post is stellar, drew, but this part really gets me:

Quote from: drew

... The entire secretive GREC discussions, which began in 1997, presuppose acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity." Furthermore, the doctrinal discussions with Rome do so as well. The evidence that proves this is that there was no demands from the SSPX for any dogmatic clarification of modern doctrinal teachings. It never happened. Romans are not dummies. They would have never entered into discussions if that had any real concerns that +Fellay would actually appeal to dogma.

Next time you see +Bishop Fellay ask him about the 1989 Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity. You should not be surprised to learn that he made it long ago.

Drew

A superficial reader might complain that the "hermeneutic of continuity" didn't exist until 2010 (or whatever year it was), so how could GREC have presupposed any acceptance of something that wouldn't arrive for 10 more years?

This is where principles come into play. The principle of the denial of the principle of non-contradiction is a matter of ancient history. The Greek philosophers 400 years before Christ dealt with this obstacle and did so just fine. That's because they could t-h-i-n-k.

The problem with GREC is that it presumed to deny the principle of non-contradiction even before Benedict XVI attempted to legitimize such an act of intellectual insanity with his deviant and repulsive screed. That GREC set foot into that same snake pit of suicide before the "hermeneutic of continuity" did is obviated by the egregiousness of the act itself, regardless of which one came first.

Furthermore, readers ought to know that this infamous Oath of Fidelity (1989?) was a replacement for the Oath Against Modernism. Needless to say, it covers none of the anti-Modernist promises of Sacrorum Antistitum.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it! (Directed at flaming lowbrow liberals like petwerp, whose posts I can't be bothered to read anyway.)

peterp

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2014, 04:38:12 PM »

Drew, rather than using the quote feature I'll just answer in bullet form as your reply in a number of places didn't make sense or follow.

1. I know you attributed what was copied, but the text copied is not relevant; this has nothing it do with an instance of disobedience.

2. You accused me of calumny (1st post) which you define as a lie for the intention of damaging the reputation of another (2nd post). Thus, you are calling me a liar and attributing intent (both of which are not true).

3. The ignorance here is on your part: i) Your last post was largely irrelevant and shows you have no grasp of the subject. This has nothing to do with disobedience; ii) You completely ignored my qualification - a true understanding of the term bishop's flock - since if Neil thinks as you do regarding the term, he too would be utterly clueless; iii) there was no intent to damage a reputation but rather it serve as a warning to him and others.

4. I'll repeat this "A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction." It is a flock, both a clerical-flock and a lay-flock, within a territory over which a bishop has been bestowed the power to govern. It is attached to an ecclesiastical office by law and is automatically acquired by one who acquires the office. To claim jurisdiction over all or part of another bishop's flock is an act of usurpation.

5. Let me explain jurisdiction to you: Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful and lead them to eternal life. This power was conferred by Christ on the Church. The pope draws on this power and confers a share of it upon the Church's clerics. It is the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'. Only the baptized are subject to jurisdiction. It is necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of those upon whom jurisdiction has been conferred. Those who reject the Church's jurisdiction are no longer members of the Church.

6. You seem incapable of distinguishing between flock and individual. The supplied jurisdiction of the Society bishops is exercised on a case by case over individuals in need, namely, confirmands, seminarians of the Society and affiliated communities) - that's all. Supplied jurisdiction is not possessed one moment before or after the action. Only an individual can make use of the benefit of supplied jurisdiction. Flock denotes an ordinary jurisdiction. Bp. Fellay's jurisdiction is obvious from his title.

7. To arbitrarily choose to place oneself under the jurisdiction of another (bishop) is to reject the Church's lawful authority, that is, one's local ordinary. To reject the Church's authority is to put oneself outside the Church. To claim "In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable." demonstrates, at least, a schismatic attitude; it implies a rejection of Church authority.

8. Reposting your calumnies regarding Bp. Fellay below as you refused to answer them with recent interview responses:

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.", "but that it will occur has already been determined."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon. Now you assert that some form of agreement is already in place [I note that you added sooner or later to give you some more leeway]
“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.” (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.
Rome made a “non-official” approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle. (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.
That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.” (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)
For Benedict XVI, Vatican Council II is part of Tradition. It is a total equivocacy. When Vatican II says the opposite of what was affirmed until then, there are no “hermeneutics of continuity” (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

Drew, please don't waffle again it just looks like you are trying to avoid the obvious. Using you own criteria please prove and provided evidence for you claims and demonstrate Bp. Fellay was lying. Not hearsay, inuendo etc. Evidence. If you can't stop cowering behind waffle, man-up and retract your comments.

drew

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2014, 07:53:32 PM »

Quote from: peterp

For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism. That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term. The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor. If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it. You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.

Quote from: peterp

3. The ignorance here is on your part: i) Your last post was largely irrelevant and shows you have no grasp of the subject. This has nothing to do with disobedience; ii) You completely ignored my qualification - a true understanding of the term bishop's flock - since if Neil thinks as you do regarding the term, he too would be utterly clueless; iii) there was no intent to damage a reputation but rather it serve as a warning to him and others.

You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application. It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."

Quote from: peterp

4. I'll repeat this "A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction." It is a flock, both a clerical-flock and a lay-flock, within a territory over which a bishop has been bestowed the power to govern. It is attached to an ecclesiastical office by law and is automatically acquired by one who acquires the office. To claim jurisdiction over all or part of another bishop's flock is an act of usurpation.

You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction. So what? If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities. Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?

Quote from: peterp

5. Let me explain jurisdiction to you: Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful and lead them to eternal life. This power was conferred by Christ on the Church. The pope draws on this power and confers a share of it upon the Church's clerics. It is the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'. Only the baptized are subject to jurisdiction. It is necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of those upon whom jurisdiction has been conferred. Those who reject the Church's jurisdiction are no longer members of the Church.

The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'" He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms. I have already explained this question in a previous post. Try to read it more carefully. Since you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the document in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction."

Quote from: peterp

6. You seem incapable of distinguishing between flock and individual. The supplied jurisdiction of the Society bishops is exercised on a case by case over individuals in need, namely, confirmands, seminarians of the Society and affiliated communities) - that's all. Supplied jurisdiction is not possessed one moment before or after the action. Only an individual can make use of the benefit of supplied jurisdiction. Flock denotes an ordinary jurisdiction. Bp. Fellay's jurisdiction is obvious from his title.

Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'" does so on a "case by case" basis "over individuals in need." I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this claim.

Quote from: peterp

7. To arbitrarily choose to place oneself under the jurisdiction of another (bishop) is to reject the Church's lawful authority, that is, one's local ordinary. To reject the Church's authority is to put oneself outside the Church. To claim "In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable." demonstrates, at least, a schismatic attitude; it implies a rejection of Church authority.

"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual. No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily" with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction. If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind. In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.

About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century. It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area" and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy. So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution? Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?

"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology. There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

Quote from: peterp

8. Reposting your calumnies regarding Bp. Fellay below as you refused to answer them with recent interview responses:

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.", "but that it will occur has already been determined."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon. Now you assert that some form of agreement is already in place [I note that you added sooner or later to give you some more leeway]
“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.” (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.
Rome made a “non-official” approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle. (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.
That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.” (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)
For Benedict XVI, Vatican Council II is part of Tradition. It is a total equivocacy. When Vatican II says the opposite of what was affirmed until then, there are no “hermeneutics of continuity” (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

Drew, please don't waffle again it just looks like you are trying to avoid the obvious. Using you own criteria please prove and provided evidence for you claims and demonstrate Bp. Fellay was lying. Not hearsay, inuendo etc. Evidence. If you can't stop cowering behind waffle, man-up and retract your comments.

The metaphor of a "train" going to Rome is attributed to Fr. Alain-Marc Nély, the second assistant to Bishop Fellay, who is reported to have said, "The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off." Bishop Fellay has already removed any possible obstacles to his return to Rome and therefore the metaphor of a "train" that travels on a determined track and direction is most appropriate. The only question is with regard to speed - sooner or later, it ends up at the station. The "obstacles" have been so completely removed that there is no longer any grounds to argue that a "state of emergency" and therefore a "state of necessity" exists. Those still following Bishop Fellay at this time can offer no moral justification for doing so.

Is Bishop Fellay a liar or is eveybody else? He overthrew the norms adopted by the General Chapter 2006 that there would be "no practical agreement without a doctrinal solution" and has followed his own prescription for that agreement in 2012 that he approved. The General Chapter was not informed about GREC in 2006. Since they established the norms that Bishop Fellay was obligated to follow, they necessarily possessed a right to know of this fact.

In Bishop Fellay's reply written by Fr. Pfluger to the Letter from the Three Bishops he admits to acting in a secretive manner because of their "attitude" (perhaps, a "schismatic attitude"?) has kept the "Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters." This is an open admission of duplicity which he apparently believes he is entitled to. If he has not revealed his intentions honestly to the "three bishops" or the General Chapter, why would think that he has leveled with anyone else, especially you? Fr. Pfluger also says that the Society should proceed with a practical agreement because, "To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end." The Letter even explains the reason for a practical agreement now: "Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer." Rome demands a "practical agreement" and Bishop Fellay agrees.

The duplicity of Bishop Fellay is evident again in Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera's report that Bishop Fellay most favorably approved of a 'reverently' offered Novus Ordo and said that even Archbishop Lefebvre would not have opposed the Novus Ordo offered in such a manner. Or Bishop Peter Elliott who said that Bishop Fellay and/or the priests in his presence told him that the "Tridentine Mass could be said or sung in the vernacular." These reports were denied by Bishop Fellay. Who is the liar?

The Open Letter by the 37 priests from the French District documents numerous examples of duplicity of Bishop Fellay and his assistants. Are these 37 priests lying or is Bishop Fellay? The Carmelites in Germany have separated from the SSPX and accused Bishop Fellay of duplicity. The Dominicans in France have done the same and published, for limited distribution, a history documenting this behavior. Who is lying, Bishop Fellay or the Carmelites and the Dominicans?

The secretive GREC discussions presupposed the "hermeneutic continuity" and so did the "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome. Without the context of the "hermeneutic of continuity" they could not have taken place. It is really immaterial anymore what Bishop Fellay has said; it is however most material what he has done. By quoting Bishop Fellay's denial of his accepting the Hermeneutic of Continuity you are just providing more documentary proof that he is a liar. If Bishop Fellay were interested in "preserving the Faith" as you claim, his doctrinal discussions would have ended with demands for dogmatic declarations and the publication of a syllabus of errors against the "hermeneutic of rupture" that is the only Catholic answer to the demand for a practical agreement from Rome. It never happened.

Remember, it was the same Bishop Fellay who said he rejected the "hermeneutic of continuity" who also said, that Religious Liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!” (CNS interview, May 2012)

When do think Bishop Fellay made the 1989 Profession of Faith and took the Oath of Fidelity? Do you think he will lie about it if you ask him? Or is he, what you would say, developing a "schismatic attitude"?

Drew

peterp

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #73 on: September 05, 2014, 11:19:16 PM »

Quote from: drew

This is both false and calumny because you have deliberately ignore the qualifier (of which you have been told about repeatedly). You did not provided an exposition , it was an argumentation. The exposition appeared originally in The Remanant. It was not relevant (save the definition of schism) because the argumentation deals with disobedience not a rejection per se of authority. Your first posts left no door open as it stated, falsely "Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny ...". You also conclude that I know it to be a lie (which is clearly not the case) and that there is an intent to injure which is also not the case (as already explained to you). Simply Drew, you are a liar.

Quote from: drew

You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application. It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."

I notice you completely ignore the term bishop's flock. I didn't write the argumentation (that you wrongly label exposition) "shows no grasp of the subject" but it is YOU who has no grasp of the subject.

Quote from: drew

You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction. So what? If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities. Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?

"So what?" - just about sums it up you don’t have a clue what you are writing about. I notice you didn't addess the term bishop’s flock again. And when you have J.Paul, who is hardly a “Felleyite”, stating “Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock…” it becomes screaming obviously to everyone that you do not understand meaning of the terms used:
"... the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his sheep." (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais defines the limits of their jurisdiction to two groups - those seeking the sacrament of confirmation and holy orders - "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works."
Your logic and understanding of Bishop Fellay jurisdiction faulty. He has ordinary jurisdiction over members of the Society as the Superior General, and supplied jurisdiction in the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, over religious communities etc.

Quote from: drew

The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'" He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms. I have already explained this question in a previous post. Try to read it more carefully. Since you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the document in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction.

The Roman Pontiff is the source of jurisdiction upon this earth, all power emanates from him:
"... the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz, p.28)
"When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the Pope acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person." (ibid. p.197)
"If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law." (Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379)
"In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum." (Can. 144 §1)

Quote from: drew

Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'"[1] does so on a "case by case"[2] basis "over individuals in need."[3] I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this.[4]

[1] As previously quoted: i) Miaskiewicz, p.28, p.197; ii) Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379; iii) Can. 144 §1;
[2] i) "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
ii) "... every single time that this reputed bishop or pastor under the requisite conditions of canon 209 attempts the performance of a jurisdictional act, he receives the necessary jurisdiction in actu. Thus, he does not possess the jurisdiction one moment before nor a single moment after the performance of the action. It does not matter how many acts he performs. The jurisdiction is always supplied in the self-same manner: in actu." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(iii) "The power is given not habitually but in actu: the agent does not possess the power before he uses it, nor does he retain it afterwards: he possesses it by delegation of the law ONLY AS LONG AS IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE VALID EXERCISE OF THE ACT." (The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Angles);
[3] i) "... the individual is to make use of the benefit of canon 209 ..." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(ii) "it is a personal and not a territorial jurisdiction. It is very important to understand this. Your priests have jurisdiction over your persons and not over a territory." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
[4] There's no paper work, it's just you simply do not understand jurisdiction. Seriously Drew, use the serach facility of CathInfo and you will see jurisdiction/supplied jurisdiction has been done to death. And there are some excellent references.

Quote from: drew

"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual. No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily" with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction. If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind. In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.

Your "shepherd" is your local ordinary. To reject his authority is schismatic. You wrote: "If any faithful member ... wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so ...". No he isn't, it is "necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom." (Members of the Church, Catholic Encyclopedia).

Quote from: drew

About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century. It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area" and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy. So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution? Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?

We don't need a strawman example, you simply need to understand the difference between to deny and to not comply. To deny that laws apply is to reject the subject's jurisdiction (it is the subject's power to apply laws), where as to not comply with an exercise of the law is an act of disobedience against the subject.

Quote from: drew

"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology. There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

I didn’t say there was, but this mentality leads to schism.

peterp

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #74 on: September 06, 2014, 12:06:27 AM »

Quote from: drew

Is Bishop Fellay a liar ...

Sorry I didn't address these falsehoods in the last post.

I notice that you did not address your calumnies that I highlighted previously.

But to answer your waffle:
i)
a) You inserted the word express,
b) this quote is dubious to say the least.
c)you claimed "that it will occur has already been determined." of which have provided no proof for this assertion.

ii) You use terms like [legall] norms without understanding what you are writing:
a) the declaration did not define legal "norms";
b) the declaration did not exclude there ever being a practical agreement;
c) the declaration did not curtail or restrict the superior general's role;
d) the declaration did not deal with post-doctrinal discussions or events;
e) the meeting in Albano (Obtober 2012) agreed that Bp. Fellay should continue negotiations with Rome.

iii) The "three bishops" letter is now an irrelevance. There is an updated one of the three society bishops published on the 25th anniversary of their consecrations. You use words like duplicity (deceitfulness, dishonesty) without any evidence and really it says alot about you when you believe Cardinal Llovera/Bishop Elliott/CNS as being the oracles of truth.

iv) GREC is nothing knew it has been know about for years:
http://angeluspress.org/blog/catholic-or-compromised-what-is-the-grec/

v) I gave you an explicit quote from Bp. Fellay rejecting "Hermeneutic of Continuity". You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Drew you are a liar.

drew

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #76 on: September 06, 2014, 08:51:43 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

Your objection here is superficial and pointless. I provided both an exposition and an argument addressing your false accusation against Neil Obstat of schism. The exposition was necessary because terms must be properly exposited to write accurate propositions and structure sound arguments. As to the claim that the "exposition appeared originally in The Remnant" is not entirely accurate, it is immaterial, and implies plagiarism.

The article you are referring was written by Fr. Brian Harrison and was published in the Remnant. But what is the point. I cited Fr. Harrison's contribution in the post script to my post. Furthermore, I had an email exchange with Fr. Harrison in which I discussed using his exposition and arguments in the defense of Fr. Samuel Waters in his case against a decree of excommunication from Archbishop Chaput. So not only have I credited Fr. Harrison for his intellectual contribution, I have also personally consulted with him before using his arguments.

The essential point is that you demonstrated complete ignorance regarding the legal and moral meaning of the word schism that you irresponsibly made against Neil Obstat. You should be grateful to me and Fr. Harrison for dispelling your ignorance. Now that you have had a proper exposition of the word you have no excuse for your accusation of schism.

Let other be the judge as to who is a "liar."

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction. So what? If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities. Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?

I have no problem with the quotation taken from +Tissier but you do not understand what he is saying. Bishop Fellay does not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" over the SSPX or anyone else, and is in fact himself subject to ordinary jurisdiction. That is assuming that he has not privately taken the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity and in reward for which he has been secretly given ordinary jurisdiction. But would anyone be surprised to learn that this what has in fact happened?

But to the point, +Tissier said that "our jurisdiction is... exercised... case by case over the persons who are in need." That is, the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church because of the rights of the faithful. And this is exactly what I have already explained to you.

Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd. All who exercise jurisdiction in the Church as shepherds do so by participation in the priesthood of Christ. The ordinary exercise of this power that belongs to the Church is delegated by the Pope according to legal norms, but if the Pope fails in teaching the faith or in the worship of God, or those to whom he has delegated jurisdiction fail, then any member of the flock of Christ is at liberty to seek a faithful shepherd to follow.

Schism is the denial of jurisdiction per se. The denial of jurisdiction per accidens is not.

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

The Pope is not the "source of jurisdiction upon this earth." The "source" of jurisdiction is God. "All power in heaven and on earth is given to Me (Jesus Chrsit)." When God founded His Church He endowed His Church with the attributes of authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. Jurisdiction is grounded upon the attribute of authority. The Pope in his office exercises this power of the Church. The power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff. When the Pope dies or resigns jurisdiction does not die or resign with him. Ordinary jurisdiction is delegated according to legal norms. Supplied jurisdiction in not delegated according to legal norms except in the case of "common error or in doubt" which are addressed in the Code of Canon Law. I repeat, with these two limited exceptions cited in Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction is not created by positive laws and it is not exercised by positive law. Those who have argued that traditional priest exercise supplied jurisdiction according to canonical norms have done a real disservice to all faithful Catholics. No SSPX priest does or has ever exercised supplied jurisdiction by virtue of the prescriptions of positive law because of "common error or doubt."

The authorities you are quoting are only addressing the legal prescriptions of jurisdiction. They are not dealing with the situation during a time of general apostasy in the hierarchy.

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

You are conflating two distinct categories. Bishop Tissier understands the problem and you do not. I agree that supplied jurisdiction is exercised on a case by case basis and have said this from my first post. You have not. It is so because it is the individual person's needs that create the supplied jurisdiction. It is the penitent in need of absolution that gives the jurisdiction to the traditional priest. The problem is that you have claimed that it is "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction.'" The only situations where supplied jurisdiction conferred by the Pope are addressed in Canon Law. The positive law of the Church does not address directly all the multitudinous situations were supplied jurisdiction may be necessary. This fact is recognized in Canon Law which states that the highest law is the salvation of souls.

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

Again, so what? You are addressing the ordinary exercise of jurisdiction. Now, as explained before from St. Pius X, the purpose of jurisdiction is to teach the doctrines of the Catholic faith and offer the proper worship to God. Jurisdiction has no authority to teach error or corrupt worship.

You apparently do not have a problem with the Novus Ordo doctrine or worship and if that is the case, then you have no right to act in matters of doctrine or worship outside the authority of your local ordinary. You are publically admitting that you have no right to attend a SSPX Mass or to receive the sacraments from any SSPX priest without the permission of your local ordinary. So why are you posting on this forum?

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

The straw man is not my example. It is you or whoever else "we" refers. You have made unsubstantiated accusations and cannot examine jurisdiction with any greater moral insight than a Pharisee.

I have said nothing about the distinction between "to deny" and "to not comply" so who is inventing a straw man? I hope you don't smoke. If you understood the distinction, I would not have had to explain to what schism is in the first place. If you would re-read my post you will find the qualification that any of the faithful are free to follow +Williamson as their shepherd until those exercising ordinary jurisdiction teach correct doctrine and proper worship of God. If the local ordinary did this, then there would be no right or reciprocal duty to for supplied jurisdiction.

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology. There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

I didn’t say there was, but this mentality leads to schism.

Does the "p" after peter stand for "pan"?

Drew

drew

ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.

« Reply #77 on: September 06, 2014, 09:03:23 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: drew

The metaphor of a "train" going to Rome is attributed to Fr. Alain-Marc Nély, the second assistant to Bishop Fellay, who is reported to have said, "The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off." Bishop Fellay has already removed any possible obstacles to his return to Rome and therefore the metaphor of a "train" that travels on a determined track and direction is most appropriate. The only question is with regard to speed - sooner or later, it ends up at the station. The "obstacles" have been so completely removed that there is no longer any grounds to argue that a "state of emergency" and therefore a "state of necessity" exists. Those still following Bishop Fellay at this time can offer no moral justification for doing so.

Is Bishop Fellay a liar or is eveybody else? He overthrew the norms adopted by the General Chapter 2006 that there would be "no practical agreement without a doctrinal solution" and has followed his own prescription for that agreement in 2012 that he approved. The General Chapter was not informed about GREC in 2006. Since they established the norms that Bishop Fellay was obligated to follow, they necessarily possessed a right to know of this fact.

In Bishop Fellay's reply written by Fr. Pfluger to the Letter from the Three Bishops he admits to acting in a secretive manner because of their "attitude" (perhaps, a "schismatic attitude"?) has kept the "Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters." This is an open admission of duplicity which he apparently believes he is entitled to. If he has not revealed his intentions honestly to the "three bishops" or the General Chapter, why would think that he has leveled with anyone else, especially you? Fr. Pfluger also says that the Society should proceed with a practical agreement because, "To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end." The Letter even explains the reason for a practical agreement now: "Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer." Rome demands a "practical agreement" and Bishop Fellay agrees.

The duplicity of Bishop Fellay is evident again in Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera's report that Bishop Fellay most favorably approved of a 'reverently' offered Novus Ordo and said that even Archbishop Lefebvre would not have opposed the Novus Ordo offered in such a manner. Or Bishop Peter Elliott who said that Bishop Fellay and/or the priests in his presence told him that the "Tridentine Mass could be said or sung in the vernacular." These reports were denied by Bishop Fellay. Who is the liar?

The Open Letter by the 37 priests from the French District documents numerous examples of duplicity of Bishop Fellay and his assistants. Are these 37 priests lying or is Bishop Fellay? The Carmelites in Germany have separated from the SSPX and accused Bishop Fellay of duplicity. The Dominicans in France have done the same and published, for limited distribution, a history documenting this behavior. Who is lying, Bishop Fellay or the Carmelites and the Dominicans?

The secretive GREC discussions presupposed the "hermeneutic continuity" and so did the "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome. Without the context of the "hermeneutic of continuity" they could not have taken place. It is really immaterial anymore what Bishop Fellay has said; it is however most material what he has done. By quoting Bishop Fellay's denial of his accepting the Hermeneutic of Continuity you are just providing more documentary proof that he is a liar. If Bishop Fellay were interested in "preserving the Faith" as you claim, his doctrinal discussions would have ended with demands for dogmatic declarations and the publication of a syllabus of errors against the "hermeneutic of rupture" that is the only Catholic answer to the demand for a practical agreement from Rome. It never happened.

Remember, it was the same Bishop Fellay who said he rejected the "hermeneutic of continuity" who also said, that Religious Liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!” (CNS interview, May 2012)

When do think Bishop Fellay made the 1989 Profession of Faith and took the Oath of Fidelity? Do you think he will lie about it if you ask him? Or is he, what you would say, developing a "schismatic attitude"?

Drew

The term "waffle" is synonymous with duplicity. Bishop Fellay is guilty of duplicity by his own admission in the letter addressed to the three bishops. And I have provided plenty of additional evidence by many priests and religious to substantiate the charge. Your replies have addressed nothing. As for the GREC discussions, they were only common knowledge among the insiders. Bishop Fellay never acknowledged the discussions until they were publicly exposed.

You have yet to understand that the GREC discussions and the Doctrinal Discussions with Rome presuppose the hermeneutic of continuity. Bishop Fellay's denial of the hermeneutic of continuity is only evidence of his lying.

Now you have made the accusation against me of duplicity without evidence and that will be hard to produce since evidence for a "waffle" requires that I have said one thing to you and something else to another on the same question. So you are back to where we began are exchange, that is, you making an unsubstantiated allegation against another.

Neil Obstat was right. You are not worth the trouble to read.

Drew

BACK

HOME