Angelqueen.org For Purity and Tradition in Catholicism

Lumen Gentium; 1989 PROFESSION OF FAITH; & the AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM

BACK

HOME

Page 1

Go To Page 2, 3

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:30 pm    Post subject: LG; 1989 PROFESSION OF FAITH; & the “AUTHENTIC MAGISTERI

LUMEN GENTIUM, the 1989 PROFESSION OF FAITH, and the “AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM”

Rabbi David Rosen, wrote:

"If 'Nostra Aetate' and 'Lumen Gentium' are not considered fundamental doctrines of the Church, and it is possible to question them without challenging the authority of the church, then we (and not just Jewish-Catholic relations) are in for a very rough ride ahead."
Rabbi David Rosen, American Jewish Committee, Head of Interreligious Affairs Office

Most Reverend Kevin John Patrick McDonald, BA, STL, STD, Archbishop of Southwark wrote:

Nostra Aetate is a very short document but its implications and repercussions have been enormous. It has to be seen in the context of the overall renewal of Vatican II since it focuses and symbolises the spirit and the direction of that renewal. …. Yet Nostra Aetate is integral to the whole direction of conciliar teaching. Crucially it is organically linked to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and is very specifically related to the Declaration on Religious Liberty.
Lumen Gentium provided a new articulation of the Church's self-understanding, one that is in some way inclusive of other Christians, of other religions and of all people of good will….. Nostra Aetate built on these dogmatic principles of Lumen Gentium, and in order to implement this body of teaching, Pope Paul VI set up the body which is now called the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. And there has been nothing token about the mandate and the responsibility given to this department. Moreover, the present Pope (John Paul II) has given this office his full support. His initiatives and his developing teaching in this area have been among the most remarkable features of this papacy. Indeed the very profile of the papacy has changed through these initiatives. Archbishop Runcie, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, said that only one Church and only one Church leader could have convened the historic gathering of religious leaders in Assisi in 1986. So the Church can be justly proud of what it has achieved over the last forty years.
Most Reverend Kevin John Patrick McDonald, BA, STL, STD, Archbishop of Southwark, Nostra Aetate: Forty Years On

Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II’s “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” provides the “new articulation of the Church’s self-understanding,” that is, Lumen Gentium articulated a new ecclesiology and Bishop McDonald regards this new ecclesiology as being “dogmatic.” The “dogmatic principles” of Lumen Gentium form the first principles for the pastoral document, Nostra Aetate. The quotation from Rabbi Rosen indicates that he recognizes the relationship between the two documents and expects their teaching to be “considered fundamental doctrines of the Church” so that a Catholic cannot “question them without challenging the authority of the Church.”

Lumen Gentium is the key document of Vatican II. In establishing the new ecclesiology it is the lynchpin providing the doctrinal justification, not only for Nostra Aetate, but for the pastoral documents on ecumenism and religious liberty. In the Angelqueen discussion, Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI, http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35405&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=, authoritative quotations supporting the subordinate relationship of the pastoral documents to Lumen Gentium were provided. Regarding Lumen Gentium in particular, the problem of “subsist” was discussed and the relationship of the Lumen Gentium to the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the interreligious Prayer Meeting at Assisi was demonstrated. There is another problem with Lumen Gentium that deserves our immediate attention. Just how is it that a modern bishop and a Jewish rabbi are able to suppose that the new ecclesiology is a “dogmatic” question that represents a doctrinal development that binds the conscience of Catholic faithful? This problem with Lumen Gentium also directly pertains to the current negotiations between Rome and the SSPX and will likely be included in the “Profession of Faith” that those in the SSPX will be obligated to take to be ‘regularized’ with Rome.

The term “authentic Magisterium,” or, as it would be better translated, “authorized,” has its authoritative origin from Lumen Gentium.

Lumen Gentium wrote:

"In matters of faith and morals the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra."
Lumen Gentium, ch. 3, n. 25

From Lumen Gentium it was incorporated by the CDF, with approval by John Paul II, in the 1989 new Profession of Faith as the third paragraph of three paragraphs that were added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The first two paragraphs are, like the rest of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, dogmas. The third paragraph, taken from Lumen Gentium, is not a dogma of the Catholic Church:

Profession of Faith, 1989 wrote:

What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.
Profession of Faith, 1989, third of the three added paragraphs

In 1998 John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio, Ad Tuendam Fidem, amended the 1983 Code of Canon Law to cover the additional paragraphs of this Profession of Faith and made its denial a criminal offense with appropriate penalties.

Code of Canon Law wrote:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
§2 or in can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary.

Canon Law 752, translated with Commentary from the Canon Law Society of Great Britan and Ireland wrote:

Canon 752, as translated from the Church’s original Latin, states: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
Commentary: The “religious submission of intellect and will” means a real internal assent, not a mere external adherence. The original Latin word in Canon 752 is obsequium, which is properly translated, “submission.”
Lumen Gentium # 25, confirms it: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

At the same time of the publication of Ad Tuendam Fidem, the CDF issues a clarification of the three paragraphs with references. Regarding the third paragraph:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, CDF wrote:

10. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings ¬ on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.18 They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error. 19
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest".20
As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.38
18. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 23: AAS 82 (1990), 1559-1560.
19. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 23 and 24: AAS 82 (1990), 1559-1561.
38. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 17, 23 and 24: AAS 82 (1990), 1557-1558, 1559-1561.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect CDF, June 29, 1998

Donum Veritatis, on religious vocation of theologians, references Lumen Gentium and says that the “religious submission of will and intellect… cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” and indicates the “indissoluble bond between the ‘sensus fidei’” and the “religious submission of the will and intellect…. to the (authentic) magisterium.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Veritatis wrote:

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. (23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith….. Not without reason did the Second Vatican Council emphasize the indissoluble bond between the "sensus fidei" and the guidance of God's People by the (authentic) magisterium of the Pastors. These two realities cannot be separated. (Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 12.)
(23) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 25; Code of Canon Law, can. 752.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Veritatis, May 1990

The problem with this new formulation, aside from the fact that the third paragraph is the only part of this Profession of Faith that is not a dogma, and aside from the fact that those who have given us this ‘article of faith’ never submitted their ‘minds and wills’ to the condemnations of liberalism and modernism, is that there is no distinction made between the authority of different acts of the “authentic magisterium" other than those that are not ex cathedra.

Cardinal Ratzinger said regarding Vatican II:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote:

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma' which takes away the importance of all the rest." Cardinal Ratzinger, addressing the bishops of Chili, 1988

Lumen Gentium has not “made itself into a ‘superdogma.’” That is being orchestrated by Rome in the new Profession of Faith. A traditional chapel in Pennsylvania was accused by their local ordinary of “heresy” and “schism.” In a letter from the judicial vicar of the diocese at the direction of the bishop, the vicar said, “The action of choosing or rejecting doctrine by personal preference …is dissent from the authentic Magisterium.” His accusation of “heresy” and “schism” was based upon “dissent from the authentic Magisterium.” Is Rome soon to level the same charges against traditional Catholics who do not conform to the modernist agenda?

The “authentic (or authorized) magisterium” refers only to the person who occupies the Church office to which the Magisterium is attached. The word magisterium is used equivocally and it is important to distinguish the different senses. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ as a visible society. St. Pius X in Pascendi says “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).

Thus the Church has been endowed by its creator with three attributes: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. Attributes are qualities a thing must possess to be what it is. Infallibility, the power to teach without error, like the other attributes, belongs primarily to the Church and only secondarily to those persons who occupy the offices in the Church to which the Magisterium is attached. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. Jesus said, “He that heareth you, heareth me” (Lk. 10, 16). The Magisterium is always infallible and cannot be otherwise because it is Jesus Christ, ‘truth itself’, who is speaking. In this sense the word Magisterium should always be written with a capital letter. The Magisterium can be engaged infallibly in the extraordinary form when the Pope speaks ex cathedra or approves the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council. It can also be engaged infallibly in the ordinary and universal form. The Magisterium can also be engaged when the Pope teaches, without the possibility of error, definitive doctrines on faith and morals to the universal Church that are necessarily related to dogmas.

When those who occupy the offices of the Magisterium teach by virtue of the grace of their person, that is, the grace of state, and do not engage the Magisterium of the Church, they are said to be teaching by the “ordinary magisterium,” or as it is sometimes called, the “ordinary authentic magisterium” or the “ordinary papal magisterium.” In this sense, the word “magisterium” should be written with a very small “m” because the teaching is based upon his personal authority and his grace of state. And, in this case, there is no question of infallibility. Every act of the Pope is an act of the "authentic magisterium” but not every act of the “authentic magisterium” is a Magesterial act. Vatican II was an act of the “authentic magisterium” but it was not a Magisterial act, because, as Cardinal Ratzinger said, “this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”

Fr. Joseph Fenton attributes the term “authentic (or authorized) magisterium" to the theological writings of the esteemed Fr. Joachim Salaverri who said:

Fr. Joachim Salaverri wrote:

“An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953

Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility. (no.659ff). Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.)

N.B.: Fr. Fenton considered Fr. Salaverri and Louis Cardinal Billot, S. J. the foremost theologians of their time.

Fr. Fenton said regarding the authentic magisterium:

Fr. Joseph Fenton wrote:

The fact of the matter is that every doctrine taught by the Holy Father in his capacity as the Vicar of Christ must, by the very constitution of the Church militant of the New Testament, be accepted by the faithful for what it is. If it is an infallible declaration, it is to be accepted with an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent. If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be accepted with a firm but conditional mental assent.
Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953

Other theologians before Vatican II were in agreement with Fr. Fenton.

Fr. Nicolas Jung wrote:

"This is why we owe the "authentic" Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one: Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question.
Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154

Dom Paul Nau wrote:

"If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is... that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught."
Dom Paul Nau, Pope or Church?, p.29, 1956

Acts of the “authentic magisterium” that once called for, “a firm but conditional mental assent,” “only a prudential and conditional assent,” an “inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence,” have been changed by the new Profession of Faith into an internal “submission of the mind and will.”

Vatican I teaches:

Vatican Council I, On Faith wrote:

“Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
Vatican I, On Faith, chap. 3

Lumen Gentium equates the “religious submission of will and mind” as the “religious assent of soul.” The “will and mind” are the spiritual powers of the soul. An act of the virtue of faith is the submission of the “intellect and will” to God on the “authority of God” because “created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth.” Recall that an act of Faith is grounded in the will because the truths of our Faith are not evident to the intellect. The 1989 Profession of Faith calls for a “religious submission of will and intellect” to the Pope, not by virtue of the infallibility of the Church, but only to his personal authority without any necessary qualification, without any appeal to revealed truth. Since there is no certain claim to truth, the Magisterium of the Church, the power of its attribute of infallibility, is not employed. What is employed is the attribute of authority. But, authority, even the authority of the Church exercised by the Pope, is concerned with commands, injunctions, laws, precepts, etc. These are only accidentally related to truth and they are always conditional. It is an abuse of authority to command that the internal forum in a Profession of Faith submit the mind and will unconditionally to anyone but God. If the Pope wants to bind the mind and the will in the internal forum without qualification, he must employ the Magisterium of “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3, 15), that is attached to his office. He cannot do so by relying upon his grace of state.

What has been constructed is a Profession of Faith with canonical censors to punish Catholics for disobedience to authority under the appearance of disloyalty to the faith.

Where is this leading? Pope Benedict XVI said in September 2011 to the Muslims in Germany:

Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

“The Catholic Church firmly advocates that due recognition be given to the public dimension of religious adherence. In an overwhelmingly pluralist society, this demand is not unimportant. Care must be taken to guarantee that others are always treated with respect. Mutual respect grows only on the basis of agreement on certain inalienable values that are proper to human nature, in particular the inviolable dignity of every single person. Such agreement does not limit the expression of individual religions; on the contrary, it allows each person to bear witness explicitly to what he believes, not avoiding comparison with others.”
Pope Benedict XVI to the Muslims

Rights are derived from duties. God has imposed no duty to worship false gods. So how is it that the “Catholic Church firmly advocates” and “demands” that “due recognition be given to the public dimension of religious adherence” to false gods? How does it follow that treating one “with respect… allows each person to bear witness explicitly to what he believes”? Pope Benedict is appealing to pastoral decrees of Vatican II. Unitatis Redintegratio, the decree on Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate, the declaration in the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions and Dignitatis Humanae, on Religious Liberty are pastoral documents that are predicated upon Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic constitution on the Church, which is the authoritative source for the new ecclesiology. In this quote, Pope Benedict affirms that the “Catholic Church… demands” our compliance with these documents.

This “demand” is imposed by the “authentic magisterium” of the Church to which they “demand” internal “submission of the mind and will,” that is, the will must conform and submit the mind to “truths” that are not self-evident. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in Donum Veritatis, while referencing Lumen Gentium, this “religious submission of will and intellect… cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” That is, the “demand” is imposed by an appeal to truth and not to authority.

This, in my opinion, is nothing but one big dishonest sham.

Drew

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 496

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:18 pm    Post subject:
I wonder what advice St. Paul would offer if members of the "authentic magisterium" began to teach a Gospel other than that which we have received?

Moderators

penitent99
†


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 4619
Location: Novus Ordo Hell

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:53 pm    Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote: I wonder what advice St. Paul would offer if members of the "authentic magisterium" began to teach a Gospel other than that which we have received? Let me guess. How about Gal 1:8, 9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 496

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:18 pm    Post subject:

penitent99 wrote: Pax Vobiscum wrote: I wonder what advice St. Paul would offer if members of the "authentic magisterium" began to teach a Gospel other than that which we have received? Let me guess. How about Gal 1:8,9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. We have a winner!

Moderators

Sam
†


Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:01 pm    Post subject:
There was only a authentic confused and disoriented magisterium in 1989.

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1688

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:51 pm    Post subject: Re: LG; 1989 PROFESSION OF FAITH; & the “AUTHENTIC MAGIS

Drew wrote: Lumen Gentium wrote: "In matters of faith and morals the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra." Lumen Gentium, ch. 3, n. 25 The third paragraph, taken from Lumen Gentium, is not a dogma of the Catholic Church: Profession of Faith, 1989 wrote: What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive. Profession of Faith, 1989, third of the three added paragraphs The problem with this new formulation, aside from the fact that the third paragraph is the only part of this Profession of Faith that is not a dogma, and aside from the fact that those who have given us this ‘article of faith’ never submitted their ‘minds and wills’ to the condemnations of liberalism and modernism, is that there is no distinction made between the authority of different acts of the “authentic magisterium" other than those that are not ex cathedra Prior to this new formulation, did popes and bishops have the authority to overturn previously established Church teaching with non-definitive statements? Taking this to its logical extreme, if the Vatican allowed a powerful bishop to teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead, would Catholics in that diocese be required to give assent? Perhaps it is expected that only "little" doctrines, like the teaching on religious liberty, would be reversed. However, no doctrine would be safe if there are no defined limits to this policy. Where is a Catholic supposed to draw the line? When is rejection of non-definitive teaching considered legitimate? If there are limits, can such limits be removed with mere non-definitive statements? It seems that has happened already. If officials did not previously have authority to bind Catholics with non-definitive statements, then I cannot see how the non-definitive proclamation of these new powers can be authoritative.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:37 am    Post subject:

I think too much is being made of what is a perfectly legitimate statement. I can't think of any time in history in which the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs was simply considered as something "up for grabs" What is at issue are the DOCTRINAL teachings. tHat is those teachings which pertain to Catholic doctrine. For example can we reject the Credo Populi Dei of Paul VI, or the clearly expressed rejection of women priests by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Or Humanae Vitae? No, of course not. All these form part of the authentic magisterium. ON the other hand, when we read in Gaudium et Spes that "modern man is ever more aware of his religious vocation" that is merely an opinion, it is not a Catholic doctrine. The same is true of other ambiguous statements. By definition an ambiguous statement is not a Catholic doctrine. Let's take a look at the phrase that "elements of the Church" can be found in Non catholic Christianity. Well, under one aspect this is true. Whenever baptism is validly performed, or whenever the Holy Sacrifice is offered, as in the separated Eastern churches, these sacraments are valid, and valid sacraments derive their substance from the One Church of Christ. In this sense the statement is true. On the other hand, does this mean that these ecclesial bodies are in unity with the Church of Christ, well, no, they are in schism, and most often also in heresy. so we cannot say that they constitute the Church of Christ. When evaluating these statements of Vatican II and the later comments of the Popes, we must always view them in a very precise manner. And I gather from what Bishop Fellay has said that the Pope is quite willing to allow a serious criticism of certain formulations, both of the Council and of the subsequent statements of the post conciliar Popes. It is therefore clear that he himself is not demanding an assent to any and all opinions expressed over the last 45 years. What is fundamental is the subject matter, not simply the authority which comments upon it. For example, as Paul VI correctly said Vatican II represents as act of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium, but at the same time we must consider the object thereof. Hence the Decree on Social Communications was a decree of the Council, but no one would seriously suggest that it constitutes a binding doctrinal statement of what the Church holds as something in which an act of faith would be required. Now let us go on to something more serious such as the decree Dignitatis Humanae. Once again, we must ask to what are we being asked to make assent? ON the one hand the decree states unequivocally that it leaves intact the "traditional duty of individuals and societies" to defend the ONe true Faith and the Church of Christ. THen, having said that it proposes an idea of Religious Liberty which seems to contradict that very statement. Herein lies the problem that the document itself appears self contradictory And no one can make an assent to something which itself is unclear. But let us remember that Archbishop Lefebvre, and all the most traditional Fathers did accept Vatican II as a genuine council of the Church. What Mons Lefebvre always asked of Rome was a clarification and whatt he asked again and again was a solid decision about what was being proposed as Catholic Doctrine, and what was not. Most recently Monsignor Gherardini has asked the same thing. These men are serious theologians and they raise very good questions. It is not up to use, the lay faithful to impose our own opinions. In holy humility we must allow those competent in this area to discuss these issues, and it is not up to us to decide what is Catholic and what is Catholic and what is not. We must always pray for our superiors, and at the same time we must have the authentic humility to respect them. To be a Catholic means to allow those who possess the charism of the episcopacy to decide serious issues. However learned any of us may be we do not possess the grace of state given to a bishop. I am writing all this only because it appears to me that some people seem unwilling to trust Bishop Fellay who as superior of the SSPX has been given the task of leading the society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, and who no doubt possesses graces we do not have. The same must be said of Pope Benedict XVI. I am sure that they both know things that we do not. To say for example that a document may be secret means nothing at all. Throughout the history of the Church documents have been held secret. This is by no means irregular. The Church is not a democracy and has never exposed serious issues to the opinion of the masses. The very idea of doing so is inimical to the Church of Christ which exists for eternaty and not popular opinion.

Moderators

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 235

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:42 am    Post subject: Concedo

I will add here that I think that the notion of obedience to the exercise of the magisterium is often taken out of context. Obedience is limited to the faith, and that faith is what the SSPX will continue to stand firm with, regardless, of what perverse notion of authority and obedience the conciliarists might want impose. The well known theologian Fr. Hurter, S. J. long ago pointed out that “If grave and solid reasons, above all theological ones, present themselves to the mind of the faithful against decisions of the authentic Magisterium, either Episcopal or Pontifical, it will be licit for him to fear error, assent conditionally or even suspend assent.” - Theol. Dogm. Compl. Vol. 1. Pg. Merkelback confirms the same thing: “Where the Church does not teach with infallible authority, the proposed doctrine is not of itself irreformable; that is why, if per accidens in an hypothesis (albeit very rarely); after the most careful examination, there seems to be very grace reasons against the proposed teaching, it would be licit without temerity to suspend internal assent..” – Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. 1, p. 601.

Moderators

theophrastus



Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 173

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:32 am    Post subject:

"He is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above everything, above the authority, regard, genius, eloquence, or philosophy of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the Faith, resolves that he will believe that and only that which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; but whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall have found to have been introduced by some other besides that of all the saints, he will see as a trial, not the truth." St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium 20.48

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:37 am    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: I think too much is being made of what is a perfectly legitimate statement. I can't think of any time in history in which the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs was simply considered as something "up for grabs" What is at issue are the DOCTRINAL teachings. tHat is those teachings which pertain to Catholic doctrine. For example can we reject the Credo Populi Dei of Paul VI, or the clearly expressed rejection of women priests by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Or Humanae Vitae? No, of course not. All these form part of the authentic magisterium. Whenever the Pope acts, it is an act of the “authentic magisterium.” The apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus of Pope Pius XII proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is, just like the recent talk of Pope Benedict XVI to the Muslims in Germany, an act of the “authentic magisterium.” So, I am glad you “can't think of any time in history in which the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs was simply considered as something ‘up for grabs,’” because that historically has not ever occurred for any faithful Catholic. But there is a world of difference between these two acts of the “authentic magisterium.” The former engages the Church’s Magisterial power, the attribute endowed by its creator of infallibility, to speak in His name, to bind as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, a divinely revealed truth. The latter is nothing but the personal theological babble from the man who happens to be the pope. The term “magisterium” is being used equivocally and that is not by accident. The examples you have provided add nothing to clarify the question. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an act of the “authentic magisterium” that is also an act of the “ordinary and universal” Magisterium of the Church. Humanae Vitae is of the same kind. The Credo Populi of Pope Paul VI is an oddity in that 35% of its authoritative references for its dogmatic propositions are from Lumen Gentium, a non-dogmatic authority. It’s like the U. S. President declaring war on the advice and authority of his butler. These examples are immaterial to the argument. “What is at issue” is that the Pope has bound his babble of non-Magisterial “authentic magisterial” acts as an article in a Profession of Faith requiring unqualified internal “religious submission of will and intellect” (Profession of Faith), or as Lumen Gentium says, “religious submission of will and mind,” the “religious assent of soul,” on pain of being “punished with a just penalty.” He is demanding for himself something that can only be given to God. This Profession of Faith is required by everyone holding office in the Catholic Church. CS Gibson wrote: When evaluating these statements of Vatican II and the later comments of the Popes, we must always view them in a very precise manner. And I gather from what Bishop Fellay has said that the Pope is quite willing to allow a serious criticism of certain formulations, both of the Council and of the subsequent statements of the post conciliar Popes. It is therefore clear that he himself is not demanding an assent to any and all opinions expressed over the last 45 years. Pope Benedict just announced in Germany to the Muslims that the “Church firmly advocates,” she “demands,” that Catholic faithful respect the right of Muslims to move into a Christian country and build mosques for public worship. How is possible for anyone to be this stupid? Mussolini was asked to permit a mosque to be built in Rome. He replied that he would consider the request once there was a Catholic Church in Mecca. Well, how many Catholic Churches are there in Mecca? St. Boniface died bringing the Catholic Faith to Germany. Even when he and his monks were the only Catholics east of the Rhine, he never thought that the native Germanic tribes had a right to worship trees. He cut them down! So it’s “clear” to you that Pope Benedict “is not demanding an assent to any and all opinions expressed over the last 45 years” because of Bishop Fellay’s remarks after a ten course meal of cheap flattery. Yet the imposition of the pastoral documents of Vatican II has just been raised to the level of a “demand.” Take a good look at the Fraternity of St. Peter. Once bridled they never got the bishop that they were ‘promised’ by accepting the protocol signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger. The Vatican then intervened in their internal affairs and placed the ‘right’ people in key positions. Has anyone in the Fraternity of St. Peter published any meaningful, any serious criticism of Vatican II or its aftermath since their establishment? There priests were directed to participate in the Novus Ordo. This is now denied by some but I know a priest who left the Fraternity because he was told to offer the Novus Ordo at parishes when needed while on assignment in Ohio and also directed to concelebrate the Novus Ordo with the local ordinary. I also know that when Fraternity priests came to Harrisburg, PA to offer the indult Mass, they had their sermons recorded and critiqued by the local ordinary. One priest personally told me that for simply paying a mild compliment to Archbishop Lefebvre from the pulpit, he was told he could never offer Mass there again. The Fraternity of St. Peter is not only bridled, they have become a herd of geldings. And what has happened to the traditional Redemptorists? The public remarks of Pope Benedict during his trip to Germany sounded more like an apostle for the Brotherhood Religion of Freemasonry than the words of the Vicar of Christ. Not once did the Pope call upon the Lutherans, the Moslems, the Jews or the Orthodox to repent and be converted to the Church founded by Jesus Christ outside of which there is no salvation. “Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned” (Lk. 16:16, 17). That is the Pope’s primary job description. Whatever he is doing, he is not doing that. What Pope Benedict said to the Muslims was a shameless display of uncharitable human respect to them and corruption of Catholic doctrine for us because the Church does not “demand” that Catholic faithful respect the “right” of Muslims to build mosques and establish public worship in the heart of Germany. Directly after this display in Germany, the Pope communicated to the bishops of Europe at their conference in Tirana, Albania that they need to "identify new ways of evangelization with missionary audacity." He particularly stressed the need that ‘young people should have of the Gospel.’ Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, addressed the meeting and pointed out that many Europeans today no longer know anything about Christianity but cheerfully reported that this, rather than a "crisis," is an opportunity for growth (Zenit). Great, like the Captain of the Titanic could cheerfully report from the ocean floor, “We are no longer sinking.” If the Pope’s visit to Germany is any example of what he means by missionary “audacity,” things are going to get a lot worse. CS Gibson wrote: But let us remember that Archbishop Lefebvre, and all the most traditional Fathers did accept Vatican II as a genuine council of the Church. What Mons Lefebvre always asked of Rome was a clarification and whatt he asked again and again was a solid decision about what was being proposed as Catholic Doctrine, and what was not. This is not true. Archbishop Lefebvre began by asking for a clarification of Vatican II documents. After considered reflection, he ended by asking for a “wholesale revision of the text,” and “noteworthy revisions of documents” (His letter to Cardinal Ratzinger). He rejected the concept that the problem was a simple matter of hermeneutics. He saw that it is primarily a problem with the text itself, and that the problem is primarily a matter of faith. I am not aware that Bishop Fellay has made any similar request but rather seems content to barter for a “hermeneutic of continuity” more to his liking. If you can provide any evidence that Bishop Fellay has asked, like Archbishop Lefebvre, for a “wholesale revision of the text,” and “noteworthy revisions of documents,” it should be made know. CS Gibson wrote: Most recently Monsignor Gherardini has asked the same thing. These men are serious theologians and they raise very good questions. It is not up to use, the lay faithful to impose our own opinions. In holy humility we must allow those competent in this area to discuss these issues, and it is not up to us to decide what is Catholic and what is Catholic and what is not. We must always pray for our superiors, and at the same time we must have the authentic humility to respect them. To be a Catholic means to allow those who possess the charism of the episcopacy to decide serious issues. However learned any of us may be we do not possess the grace of state given to a bishop. The argument from authority has been around a long time. Actually, it is the only argument that Novus Ordites have used against traditional Catholics for the last 40 years. The response to Authority is Obedience, but obedience divorced from the virtue of Religion is a short road to hell. “It is not up to us to decide what is Catholic… and what is not.” Imagine the man born blind in the gospel making a similar reply to the Pharisees. He may have had his sight restored but he then would never have heard from the lips of Jesus, “Dost thou believe in the Son of God?.... Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee” (John 9: 35, 37). In the end, he would have better off a blind beggar. CS Gibson wrote: I am writing all this only because it appears to me that some people seem unwilling to trust Bishop Fellay who as superior of the SSPX has been given the task of leading the society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, and who no doubt possesses graces we do not have. The same must be said of Pope Benedict XVI. I am sure that they both know things that we do not. To say for example that a document may be secret means nothing at all. Throughout the history of the Church documents have been held secret. This is by no means irregular. The Church is not a democracy and has never exposed serious issues to the opinion of the masses. The very idea of doing so is inimical to the Church of Christ which exists for eternaty and not popular opinion. What are you doing supporting the SSPX in the first place? Pope Benedict has a greater grace of state than Bishop Fellay so just “allow those who possess the charism of the episcopacy to decide serious issues” and do what the Pope and your local ordinary say. After all, "It is not up to us to decide what is Catholic… and what is not." And just for the record, those convicted of the canonical crime of dissent from the “authentic magisterium” are to be “punished with a just penalty.” That is an open ended phrase. Pope Clement IV, in Turbato Corde, directed to the inquisition that relapsed heretics be “punished with due penalty.” That meant being turned over to secular authorities to be burned at the stake. When convenient it could also silence the likes of St. Joan of Arc and Savonarola. Modernist Rome is more than capable of turning over relapsed traditional Catholics for punishment to secular authorities for "hate crimes.” But, you should not have anything to worry about. Drew

Moderators

St.Justin
†


Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742
Location: Pensacola, Florida

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:55 am    Post subject:

What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium." The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC -Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions: there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709). Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff). While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this: "It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority," as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing. It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659). the rest of the article is at: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:14 pm    Post subject:

St.Justin wrote: What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium." The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC -Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions: there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709). Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff). While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this: "It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority," as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing. It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659). the rest of the article is at: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm St. Justin: This post does not add anything to what has already been said regarding the “authentic magisterium,” and the article referenced, although I think it is very good, has a serious deficiency that confuses the argument. St. Justin wrote: The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC -Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility"(vol. VII, col. 1699ff). This statement is not exactly correct, and it is confusing. It is not exactly correct because the “non-infallible ordinary magisterium” is not identical to the “authentic magisterium”. It is confusing because, when it says, “Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible,” it does not make it clear that the word, “magisterium” is being used equivocally. It is up to the reader to discover this fact and then learn the two different senses that are given to the same word. Since the problem documented in my post, its findings of fact and necessary conclusions, concerns the term “authentic magisterium,” the term needs to be accurately understood. Fr. Salaverri wrote: Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659). I referenced this same quote in my post. My introduction to Fr. Salaverri was from Fr. Joseph Fenton’s articles in published in the AER, for I am not directly familiar with Fr. Salaverri. Fr. Fenton attributes the origin of the term “authentic (authorized) magisterium” to Fr. Salaverri whom he regards as one of the best theologians of his age. The “authentic (authorized) magisterium” refers only to the “person” of the pope (I am leaving aside the question of the bishops to avoid any confusion), when he teaches from his grace of state, and has no reference to what is taught. Therefore, any act of the pope will be an act of the “authentic (authorized) magisterium.” This is the sense that the Profession of Faith uses the term when it says, “Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.” The direct implication is that the “authentic magisterium” can also be used in a “definitive” manner as well. The same terminology is used in canon 752, "when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act.” That is why the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger uses the term, "authentic ordinary magisterium” to refer to non-definitive papal teachings. The French professor, Philippe Levillain, editor of the Historical Dictionary of the Papacy and member of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, used the term “authentic infallible magisterium” to distinguish it from the “authentic ordinary magisterium.” If it is remembered that the “authentic (authorized) magisterium” refers to the teacher and not what is taught, it is easy to keep straight. The Magisterium of the Church is the power the Church has to teach in Christ’s name, that is, to teach without the possibility of error. It is grounded in the attribute of infallibility that Jesus endowed His Church. This power is exercised by the Pope (and the bishops with him) and is always infallible. When the “ordinary magisterium” engages the Magisterial power of the Church, it is called the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Vatican I). The Magisterial power of the Church can also be engaged in an “extra-ordinary” manner by the pope teaching either ex cathedra, or endorsing the doctrinal teachings of an ecumenical council. When the pope teaches by virtue of his grace of state and does not employ the Magisterial power of the Church, he is said to be teaching by the “ordinary magisterium,” or the “ordinary papal magisterium,” or the “authentic ordinary magisterium.” All these terms mean the same thing. The important point is that the word “magisterium” in this sense is the personal authority of the pope teaching by his grace of state. In both of these senses the same word, “magisterium,” is used but, the former it refers to the power of the Church to teach infallibly in Christ’s name, and the second it is the personal power of the pope to teach in his own name by virtue of his grace of state. These are two radically different senses of the same word. I think that the Magisterial power of the Church should always be written with a capital “M” to help keep the distinction clear. When Pope Benedict XVI was in Germany he addressed the Lutherans, the Muslims, the Jews and the Orthodox. All these public addresses were acts of the “authentic magisterium” because they were acts of the Pope. Since the Magisterial power of the Church was not engaged, they can be called, for better clarity, acts of the “authentic ordinary magisterium.” In the address to the Muslims he said that the “Church…. demands” that faithful Catholics support the Muslims building mosques in Germany for public worship. The problem is that the 1989 Profession of Faith binds these acts in the internal forum by “submission of the mind and will,” without qualification the violation of which constitutes a criminal act to be “punished with a just penalty.” There is also the claim that the internal “submission of the mind and will” to these “authentic magisterial” teachings are what constitutes the “sensus fidei” of a faithful Catholic and must be “understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” That is, the claim is grounded upon an appeal to truth as if the Magisterium of the Church was involved when it most certainly is not. Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF wrote: Second Vatican Council emphasizes the indissoluble bond between the "sensus fidei" and the guidance of God's People by the (authentic) magisterium of the Pastors. These two realities cannot be separated. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Veritatis, May 1990 Once the SSPX is brought on board, everything is in place to tighten the screws to impose the novelties of Vatican II. Consider from my previous discussion on Lumen Gentium and the use of the word “subsist.” Reading the clarification of this question by CDF it is superficially easy to admit a Catholic interpretation of the explanation. That is, until Cardinal Yves Congar exposed the whole scam by saying: Yves Cardinal Congar wrote: The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute "Roman" missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the "Roman" Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. Yves Cardinal Congar The honesty of Cardinal Congar exposed the sham. The CDF simply dropped the word "Roman” making the word “Catholic” equivocal. If a Lutheran, Anglican or Methodist meaning is given to the word “catholic” there is no objection by Protestants to the “clarification” offered by the CDF. If a Roman Catholic meaning is given to the word “catholic,” then Catholics have no problem with the explanation. When something like this is seen for what it is, it is apparent that we are dealing with men who through the subtle manipulation of terminology are forcing their modernist agenda, and then the “hermeneutics of continuity” becomes nothing but a liberal policy to solidify their position by claiming a congruity with received tradition. This Profession of Faith will be imposed upon the SSPX should they accept a regular status with Rome at this time. I think that everyone should look closely at the videos on YOUTUBE that show Pope Benedict XVI participating in a Lutheran service with a female Lutheran “bishop,” or the video of his participation with “Bishop” Rowan Williams and the Anglicans in England last summer. I know that I could never do what he did and not be guilty of a most grave sin. Is there anyone reading this now who would have no personal problem of conscience in doing what he did? Is there any traditional authoritative reference on moral theology that would assure that a properly formed true and certain conscience would permit such actions? Remember, Archbishop Lefebvre, in asking for a “wholesale revision of the text,” and “noteworthy revisions of documents,” of Vatican II rejected the belief that the problem was a simple matter of hermeneutics. It is a question of the defense of our Catholic faith. I am expecting the SSPX to enter to an agreement of accommodation with Rome and believe that it will be most sincerely repented from. Drew

Moderators

St.Justin
†


Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742
Location: Pensacola, Florida

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:15 pm    Post subject:

Drew My point was that everybody seems to have their own definition of “authentic magisterium,” . "In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC -Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility"(vol. VII, col. 1699ff). And you disagree with that or at least that is how I understand what you posted. "The constant understanding through the ages that the Pope and bishops are the authentic teachers of the Faith " This above is what I understand it to mean no more and no less. Apparently that is not how the NO Church sees it. Again I am not arguing with you I am just seeking clarification on an issue that the NO Church apparently does not want clarified.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:03 pm    Post subject:

The proper object of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority are those truths contained in Revelation as well as the truths of natural reason necessary to guarantee Revelation. The meaning of magisterium mere authenticum so far as I can see refers to those teachings which are not proposed as the last word on any given matter, but whicih nonetheless express the mind of the Pope on a subject relating to Catholic doctrine with regard to faith, and more likely morals. The exact meaning of 'authenticum" is somewhat unclear. it is a very recent term, but seems to refer to those teachings which touch upon problems not explicitly mentioned in Scripture or Tradition. Something like the papal condemnation of in vitro fertilization may perhaps be classed in this category. As to whether Papal speeches on general or political subjects represent doctrinal statements of course depends upon the subject matter. As to Archbishop Lefebvre et al, they most certainly accepted Vatican II as a general council of the Church. Mons Lefebvre later proposed revisions of certain texts which were, by the Roman authorities tthemselves considered to be 'pastoral' statements, and not dogmatic in nature. But to suggest that the Archbishop actually repudiated the Council in globo shows a misunderstanding of his position.

Moderators

St.Justin
†


Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742
Location: Pensacola, Florida

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:48 am    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: The proper object of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority are those truths contained in Revelation as well as the truths of natural reason necessary to guarantee Revelation. The meaning of magisterium mere authenticum so far as I can see refers to those teachings which are not proposed as the last word on any given matter, but whicih nonetheless express the mind of the Pope on a subject relating to Catholic doctrine with regard to faith, and more likely morals. The exact meaning of 'authenticum" is somewhat unclear. it is a very recent term, but seems to refer to those teachings which touch upon problems not explicitly mentioned in Scripture or Tradition. Something like the papal condemnation of in vitro fertilization may perhaps be classed in this category. As to whether Papal speeches on general or political subjects represent doctrinal statements of course depends upon the subject matter. As to Archbishop Lefebvre et al, they most certainly accepted Vatican II as a general council of the Church. Mons Lefebvre later proposed revisions of certain texts which were, by the Roman authorities tthemselves considered to be 'pastoral' statements, and not dogmatic in nature. But to suggest that the Archbishop actually repudiated the Council in globo shows a misunderstanding of his position. That's about my take on it but it sounds like something different when it is being used in: Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty: §2 or in can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: The meaning of magisterium mere authenticum so far as I can see refers to those teachings which are not proposed as the last word on any given matter, but whicih nonetheless express the mind of the Pope on a subject relating to Catholic doctrine with regard to faith, and more likely morals. The definition of “authentic (authorized) magisterium” is provided by its author, Fr. Salaverri. He says that it refers ‘merely’ to the “person himself” and not “as regards his infallibility.” The word “mere” is derived from the Latin, merus, meaning “pure, unmixed.” Fr. Salaverri wrote: Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659). And it is in that same sense that Fr. Salaverri is quoted by Fr. Joseph Fenton. Fr. Fenton quoting Fr. Salaverri wrote: “An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff…… If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be accepted with a firm but conditional mental assent.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953 The definition provided by Fr. Salaverri and Fr. Fenton is wholly consistent with how the term is used in Lumen Gentium, the 1989 Profession of Faith, the documents of Cardinal Ratzinger as head of CDF, and the Canon 752. All clearly state that the teaching does not engage the Magisterium of the Church, that is, the power of the Church to teach infallibly in the name of God by virtue of the attribute of Infallibility endowed by God to His Church. The problem I have put to you and other concerns the 1989 Profession of Faith that is required by anyone to serve in an office of the Church. The 1989 Profession of Faith without qualification, binds the “the mind and the intellect,” or as Lumen Gentium says, “religious submission of will and mind,” “religious assent of soul,” to the personal teaching of the Pope based upon his grace of state and not upon the infallible teaching of the Church. Furthermore, dissent from this ‘article of faith’ is defined canonically as a crime with due punishment directed. Intellectual truths that are evident to the “mind,” like 2+2=4, do not require concurrence of the will. Faith requires an act of the will to compel the mind because the truths of our Faith are not self-evident. Authority, Infallibility and Indefectibility are the three attributes of the Church. The Pope through his office exercises these powers of the Church of Authority and Infallibility. The exercise of Authority directs the will of those who owe obedience, and this obedience is always conditional on the command, injunction, law, directive, etc. being one of reason, for the common good, in accord with natural law and divine law, etc. Recall that the act of obedience is due to the virtue of Justice but the first subsidiary virtue under Justice that regulates obedience is the virtue of Religion. Any legitimate command is in the category of authority-obedience and only secondarily related to truth. The science of moral theology is directed at these questions. When the Pope engages the attribute of Infallibility, which is called the Magisterium of the Church, he can by the attribute of Authority compel the will to compel the intellect unconditionally, as a divinely revealed truth, a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith. If the Magisterium is not engaged the Pope cannot, based upon his personal grace of state, bind unconditionally the “will and mind….. the soul” to whatever he is teaching. And that is why, before Lumen Gentium, acts of the “authentic magisterium” called for, “a firm but conditional mental assent,” “only a prudential and conditional assent,” an “inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence.” These same acts have been changed by the new Profession of Faith into an unqualified internal “submission of the mind and will” just as if there were dogmatic truths when they most certainly are not. CS Gibson wrote: As to Archbishop Lefebvre et al, they most certainly accepted Vatican II as a general council of the Church. Mons Lefebvre later proposed revisions of certain texts which were, by the Roman authorities tthemselves considered to be 'pastoral' statements, and not dogmatic in nature. But to suggest that the Archbishop actually repudiated the Council in globo shows a misunderstanding of his position. Pope Benedict XVI regarding the novel Vatican II teaching on Religious Liberty said that the “Church…demands” that faithful Catholics accept the right of Muslims to move into Germany, build mosques and engage in public worship to their false god. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: The necessity of judging the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the Church, so as to correct the texts that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal. Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, July 21, 1982 Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: "Considering that the Declaration of Religious Liberty is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, we ask for a wholesale revision of the text." "We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of documents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecumenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion. "Similarly on several points of prime importance, the new Code of Canon Law is unacceptable by its opposition to the definitive Magisterium of the Church." Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, April 17, 1985 What Pope Benedict says that the “Church…demands” that the faithful accept, Archbishop Lefebvre said are “contrary to the Magisterium of the Church” and require a “wholesale revision of the text.” “Wholesale” as an adverb, which answers the question ‘to what degree,’ is defined as, “in large quantities; on a large scale, especially without discrimination.” Archbishop Lefebvre, besides accusing Vatican II of being “contrary” to divinely revealed Truth, calls for a correction of “texts that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal.” To correct what is “equivocal” would require massive revisions of all the texts. If you think anyone has “misunderstood” Archbishop Lefebvre’s position regarding the Vatican II by quoting his direct communications with CDF, produce you evidence. Remember, these quotations provided are from his formal letters to Cardinal Ratzinger as head of CDF. They represent carefully considered opinions. They are not off the cuff remarks. The 1989 Profession of Faith which the SSPX will take upon being regularized, will unconditionally profess “submission of the mind and will” to Vatican II, as an act of the “authentic magisterium.” I have seen no evidence that Bishop Fellay has asked for a “wholesale revision of the text,” or any “corrections of the text” that Archbishop Lefebvre called for, but he appears to be content with obtaining a “hermeneutic of continuity” with Tradition. The mechanisms are in place to insure that the “hermeneutic of continuity” will not unset the liberal/modernist “demands.” Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:43 am    Post subject:

I am not sure what the Archbishop intended without, seeing the entire letter and the context I read much of the correspondence years ago when it was published but I can't claim to remember every point. In any case, something can be contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium without it being heretical. To ask for a revision of a text is not the same thing as to say that Vatican II was not a council of the Church. Mons Lefebvre himself took part in the Council and voted for most of the documents. I believe he voted against only Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. In 1988 he did agree to accept the Council "In the light of Tradition." I believe he changed his mind because of a lack of confidence in those then in authority. It is also true to say that he considered the formula too ambiguous. In a published interview with the Catholic Herald of London in 1990 he predicted that the SSPX and Rome would be reconciled within a decade or so. it seems he was unduly optimistic, but a certain rapprochement is clearly taking place now. Theological discussions require analysis and clarification. I would not presume to predict the outcome of the current discussions between the SSPX and Roman theologians. It is obvious that the s.e.d.e.s and those close to them do not want any kind of reconciliation, because their hope all along has been for a complete rupture between Rome and the Society; but that has never been the position of the SSPX which has always maintained that it is in communion with Rome, even while criticizing the modern statements on religious liberty etc. As to BenedictXVI's remarks in Germany, those strike me as purely "prudential" and do not pertain to the Faith, though whether he was 'demanding" something or merely asking for it is unclear. One would have to consult the original German. I agree that the term 'authentic magisterium" lacks precision. It is pure speculation on my part, but my guess is that Salaverri thought it up to defend Pius XII's Humani Generis in which the Pope says that the teaching of encyclicals requires assent. But of course, a meaningful assent can only be made to something which involves a truth of Faith or reason. Such a truth need not be proposed as defined, or of a binding nature, but it must be in some way derived from revelation, or be in accordance with right reason. And as has been taught by other theologians, it is permissible for someone competent in theology to question a statement of the authentic magisterium if his knowledge of the subject causes him to believe that the teaching presented is mistaken.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:53 am    Post subject:
PS For what it is worth Vatican II is not an act of the authentic magisterium, but rather of the Ordinary Magisterium, at least that's what Paul VI said. Nonetheless, even teachings of the O M are not infallible unless proposed as a truth of faith or morals and to be held as such. Cf Vatican I's definition on this point.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:57 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: I am not sure what the Archbishop intended without, seeing the entire letter and the context I read much of the correspondence years ago when it was published but I can't claim to remember every point. In any case, something can be contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium without it being heretical. To ask for a revision of a text is not the same thing as to say that Vatican II was not a council of the Church. No one ever said that “Vatican II was not a council of the Church.” You said this in a previous post and the comment is so absurd I thought it more charitable to ignore. But here you are, repeating it again. I never said this, and I have no idea to whom you are referring this comment. I know of no one who has ever said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider Vatican II a valid Church council. I do not know what you are talking about and I am not sure you know either. The Magisterium is the power of the Church to teach in the name of Jesus Christ who endowed His Church with the attribute of Infallibility so that He could say, “He that heareth you, heareth me” (Lk. 10, 16). It is, when engaged in the extra-ordinary or the ordinary and universal mode, on matters of faith or morals, always infallible. Heresy is the denial of Catholic dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. So not all Magisterial acts are dogmas but all dogmas are Magisterial acts. It is true that something “can be contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium without it being heretical,” but not very often. Even so, it would always be a grave sin because the rejection of the Magisterium is a rejection of Truth. Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: The necessity of judging the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the Church, so as to correct the texts that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal. Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, July 21, 1982 Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “Considering that the Declaration of Religious Liberty is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, we ask for a wholesale revision of the text.“We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of documents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecumenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion. “Similarly on several points of prime importance, the new Code of Canon Law is unacceptable by its opposition to the definitive Magisterium of the Church.” Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, April 17, 1985 Archbishop Lefebvre said that the documents of Vatican II are “contrary to the Magisterium of the Church,” the texts must be “corrected that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal,” there is a necessity “for a wholesale revision of the text (of Dignitatis Humanae)," "noteworthy revisions of (Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate),” “clarifications of numerous other texts tending toward a confusion,” and a that “the new Code of Canon Law is unacceptable by its opposition to the definitive Magisterium of the Church.” The “definitive Magisterium” is the infallible teaching of the Church. The only thing you said in your first paragraph that makes sense is your admission that you are “not sure what the Archbishop intended.” CS Gibson wrote: Mons Lefebvre himself took part in the Council and voted for most of the documents. I believe he voted against only Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. In 1988 he did agree to accept the Council "In the light of Tradition." I believe he changed his mind because of a lack of confidence in those then in authority. It is also true to say that he considered the formula too ambiguous. In a published interview with the Catholic Herald of London in 1990 he predicted that the SSPX and Rome would be reconciled within a decade or so. it seems he was unduly optimistic, but a certain rapprochement is clearly taking place now. In an article by John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News, entitled, Background to the Doctrinal Discussions, the very question of Archbishop Lefebvre's position to Vatican II was addressed. Since you are “not sure what the Archbishop intended” and “can’t claim to remember,” it should help you. John Vennari wrote: It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre said he was prepared to accept Vatican II in light of Tradition, but the issue goes beyond a mere interpretation of texts laden with ambiguities and crucial omissions. In his correspondence with Cardinal Ratzinger in the mid-1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his position that the criterion for interpreting Vatican II in light of Tradition comprises three elements: 1) He and the SSPX would accept anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with Tradition; 2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the centuries; 3) Anything in the Council that cannot be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised. The Archbishop laid this out explicitly in his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1982 and 1985. In his letter of July 21 1982 to Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre speaks of “The necessity of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the Church, so as to correct the texts that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal.” Again, in a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger of April 17, 1985, the Archbishop is even more specific. After explaining that he and the SSPX were ready to accept the texts of the Council “in accordance with the criterion of Tradition”, that is, “according to the Traditional Magisterium of the Church”, the Archbishop states clearly what this criterion demands. Archbishop Lefebvre writes: “Considering that the Declaration of Religious Liberty is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, we ask for a wholesale revision of the text. “We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of documents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecumenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion. “Similarly on several points of prime importance, the new Code of Canon Law is unacceptable by it opposition to the definitive Magisterium of the Church.” Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions By John Vennari Archbishop Lefebvre said reflecting on his actions and comments at the Council: Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: "I admit that the optimism I showed regarding the Council and the Pope was ill-founded” Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre And John Vennari concluded: John Vennari wrote: To his dying day, he never formally consented to accept Vatican II “in light of Tradition”. He steadfastly fought the Vatican II revolution without comprise until his last breath. That is a good model for us. John Vennari, Catholic Family News, Archbishop Lefebvre and Vatican II, The Council in light of Tradition? There is nothing wrong with making mistakes. The problem is in persisting in making the same mistakes again and again. By the Prayer Meeting at Assisi Archbishop Lefebvre was calling for a “wholesale revision of the text” and “indispensable noteworthy revisions.” The documents of Vatican II required major revisions to be acceptable. Particularly, the document on Religious Liberty needs a “wholesale revisions” because it is “contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.” As John Vennari said, "That is a good model for us." It should be a "good model" for the SSPX and Bishop Fellay. You are right in that “a certain rapprochement is clearly taking place now,” and that is because Bishop Fellay has rejected Archbishop Lefebvre’s position regarding Vatican II and accepted Pope Benedict’s paradigm, the “hermeneutics of continuity.” CS Gibson wrote: Theological discussions require analysis and clarification. I would not presume to predict the outcome of the current discussions between the SSPX and Roman theologians. It is obvious that the s.e.d.e.s and those close to them do not want any kind of reconciliation, because their hope all along has been for a complete rupture between Rome and the Society; but that has never been the position of the SSPX which has always maintained that it is in communion with Rome, even while criticizing the modern statements on religious liberty etc. Your comment that “It is obvious that the s.e.d.e.s and those close to them do not want any kind of reconciliation, because their hope all along has been for a complete rupture between Rome and the Society” is offered without a shred of evidence to support it. What is freely offered is freely rejected. Anyway, I do not think you could support this allegation if you tried. And since you “would not presume to predict the outcome of the current discussions between the SSPX and Roman theologians,” how is it that your humility is not extended in more than one direction? On the chance of sounding presumptuous, I think the reconciliation is a done deal. The reason is Bishop Fellay has dropped Archbishop Lefebvre’s demand that the problem is a matter of Catholic faith and that problem is because of the errors contained in the texts of Vatican II and those textual errors must be revised. With Pope Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity” paradigm, he is willing to accept the documents of Vatican II without revisions. I think this will be sorely repented from. CS Gibson wrote: As to BenedictXVI's remarks in Germany, those strike me as purely "prudential" and do not pertain to the Faith, though whether he was 'demanding" something or merely asking for it is unclear. One would have to consult the original German. How they “strike you” is really unimportant. Is this an example of the principle that ‘a thing is received according to the nature of the receiver’? You clearly are not in this fight to defend the Catholic Faith. Pope Benedict declared quite unambiguously that the Catholic Church “firmly advocates… demands” that the faithful recognize the right of Muslims to build mosques in Germany for public worship. The Church “demands” nothing of the sort. And if you think this is a question of “prudence” then you need a book on moral theology to distinguish the virtue of prudence from a cowardly display of human respect. CS Gibson wrote: I agree that the term 'authentic magisterium" lacks precision. It is pure speculation on my part, but my guess is that Salaverri thought it up to defend Pius XII's Humani Generis in which the Pope says that the teaching of encyclicals requires assent. But of course, a meaningful assent can only be made to something which involves a truth of Faith or reason. Such a truth need not be proposed as defined, or of a binding nature, but it must be in some way derived from revelation, or be in accordance with right reason. And as has been taught by other theologians, it is permissible for someone competent in theology to question a statement of the authentic magisterium if his knowledge of the subject causes him to believe that the teaching presented is mistaken. If you do not understand the term “authentic (authorized) magisterium” coined by Fr. Salaverri, referenced by Fr. Fenton wrote a paper for AER in 1953 citing Salaverri’s on the question of the relationship between encyclicals and dogma, and the use of the term in Lumen Gentium, the 1989 Profession of Faith, the documents from the CDF, and canon law, then I suggest you not use it CS Gibson wrote: PS For what it is worth Vatican II is not an act of the authentic magisterium, but rather of the Ordinary Magisterium, at least that's what Paul VI said. Nonetheless, even teachings of the O M are not infallible unless proposed as a truth of faith or morals and to be held as such. Cf Vatican I's definition on this point. I think if you reread the previous posts you will understand what the "authentic (authorized) magisterium" is and what distinguishes it from the "ordinary magisterium." If that does not help, read Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25, where the term "authentic magisterium" is first authoritatively used. The word “magisterium,” literally means the authority to teach. It is derived from magister where we get the word, "master", as in a master’s degree. Where Lumen Gentium uses the word teach and its cognates, the word magisterium could equally be employed. There is an “authentic magisterium” of the pope, of a bishop, and of the bishops collectively with the pope. All three are referenced in this paragraph from Lumen Gentium. Anything done by the pope with the bishops constitutes an act of the “authentic magisterium.” Since the Council remained on a purely "pastoral level," this act of the “authentic magisterium” was only an act of the “ordinary magisterium,” that is, the extra-ordinary Magisterial power of the Church was not engaged. Lumen Gentium wrote: Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. Vatican II, LG, 25 The only people who would say Vatican II was not an act of the "authentic magisterium" would be a s.e.d.e because the do not believe Pope Paul VI was an "authentic" pope and therefore, could not convene an "authentic" council. If the SSPX is regularized without any corrections of the texts of Vatican II, there will be no corrections made. The mechanisms, as demonstrated in previous posts, are in place to see that the liberal/modernist "demands" are left intact. The SSPX will take the 1989 Profession of Faith and its Oath of Fidelity then the will be herded into the same corral as the Fraternity of St. Peter, and the "hermeneutic of continuity" will work its claim to be an organic development from received tradition. It is the conservative Catholics who more than anyone want this reconciliation to be effected. It is through their supine cowardism that the liberal/modernists have had their way. The Traditional Catholic, simply by standing firm and saying nothing, condemns them for what they have failed to defend. Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:45 am    Post subject:

Drew, In most of what you say you are just arguing for the sake of it. It really comes as no surprise to me that magisterium derives from magister. When people talk about 'accepting" Vatican II it can mean different things. Obviously, S.e.d.e.s do not consider it to be a council of the Church, as you yourself said. As to whether or not s.e.d.e.s desire the SSPX to repudiate the modern Popes, well, just ask them. They'll tell you that is precisely what they argue for. I shan't debate the meaning of 'authentic magisterium'. Of course, it can mean Ordinary magisterium, but as you yourself complain about the 1989 Professio Fidei, it doesn't always seem to be that clear cut. In any case, we are not defining what we mean by magisterium, but rather examining certain novel teachings, none of which has been proposed as belonging to the Depositum Fidei, or as derived from Revelation, or a truth of natural reason. Thus we are looking at statements which do not fall within the proper object of the Magisterium, and which thus amount more to the realm of opinion. As you are not a member of the SSPX, or so it would seem have anything to do with them, I can't see why their discussions with Rome matter to you so much. But granting they seem to, I suggest you write to Bishop Fellay, Biship Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Schmidberger etc, and point out to them how your understanding of Mons Lefebvre's position is the correct one. Obviously,no one here on AQ, which is a largely lay internet discussion forum, is going to have much influence over the Holy Father, or the Superior of the SSPX.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:55 am    Post subject:
PS The statement "if the SSPX is regularized without any corrections of the texts of Vatican II, there will be no corrections made." implies that the Roman Church is not itself the guarantor of faith, and that God requires some kind of external impulsion, before, He, in His good time, brings about a resolution of the ecclesial crisis of the last 50 years.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:11 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Drew, In most of what you say you are just arguing for the sake of it. It really comes as no surprise to me that magisterium derives from magister. When people talk about 'accepting" Vatican II it can mean different things. Obviously, S.e.d.e.s do not consider it to be a council of the Church, as you yourself said. As to whether or not s.e.d.e.s desire the SSPX to repudiate the modern Popes, well, just ask them. They'll tell you that is precisely what they argue for. I shan't debate the meaning of 'authentic magisterium'. Of course, it can mean Ordinary magisterium, but as you yourself complain about the 1989 Professio Fidei, it doesn't always seem to be that clear cut. In any case, we are not defining what we mean by magisterium, but rather examining certain novel teachings, none of which has been proposed as belonging to the Depositum Fidei, or as derived from Revelation, or a truth of natural reason. Thus we are looking at statements which do not fall within the proper object of the Magisterium, and which thus amount more to the realm of opinion. As you are not a member of the SSPX, or so it would seem have anything to do with them, I can't see why their discussions with Rome matter to you so much. But granting they seem to, I suggest you write to Bishop Fellay, Biship Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Schmidberger etc, and point out to them how your understanding of Mons Lefebvre's position is the correct one. Obviously,no one here on AQ, which is a largely lay internet discussion forum, is going to have much influence over the Holy Father, or the Superior of the SSPX. PS The statement "if the SSPX is regularized without any corrections of the texts of Vatican II, there will be no corrections made." implies that the Roman Church is not itself the guarantor of faith, and that God requires some kind of external impulsion, before, He, in His good time, brings about a resolution of the ecclesial crisis of the last 50 years. CSGibson: I think that the import of this argument has been lost on you. To claim that, “In most of what” has been said is “just arguing for the sake of it,” amounts to an admission that the arguments are either incomprehensible or simply frivolous. Let me reply to the latter. The Church has bound in a “Profession of Faith,” along with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, an article that is not a dogma. This “Profession of Faith” with an Oath of Fidelity must be made by anyone to hold a Church office. This new ‘article of faith’ requires an unqualified internal “religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.” This level of “submission” has its origin from Lumen Gentium for I know of no comparative precedence in the Church. It demands “submission… of the soul,” without qualification, to the person of the Pope in a manner that can only be given to God. Acts of the “authentic magisterium” include the documents of Vatican II, the recent ecumenical expedition to Germany, and this month’s Prayer Meeting at Assisi. These acts as you say, “do not fall within the proper object of the Magisterium (that is, the infallible teaching of the Church) and which thus amount more to the realm of opinion,” is correct. But some of these “opinions” as Archbishop Lefebvre said are “contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.” Furthermore, these “opinions” are now imposed by canon law, the violation of which constitutes a crime to be “punished with a just penalty.” This is not a frivolous matter. There is not a single article in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed for which you and I must be willing to give our very lives rather than deny. I am not a member of the SSPX, that belongs only to priests, but like them I have a duty to defend, or assist others in the defense of our faith to the best of my ability whenever it is attacked. The current crisis in the Church is a crisis of Faith. The SSPX must defend that faith, for that is their very purpose, and that cannot be done by offering to be a conservative voice in a pluralistic society. Modernist errors in those of authority must be confronted with Catholic dogma truth. That is the only weapon we possess. If you “can't see why (the SSPX) discussions with Rome matter to you so much,” then you do not understand the importance of the Faith. I have not seen any evidence that Bishop Fellay is not willing to accept Pope Benedict’s paradigm, the ‘hermeneutic of continuity/discontinuity.’ Even if the Pope’s claims regarding Vatican II were true, it would really mean that the Council should be rejected if only on the grounds that its imprecision is capable of being hijacked by a “hermeneutic of rupture.” But this is not true. Archbishop Lefebvre was correct that the Council, at least in part, is “contrary to the Magisterium of the Church” and requires a “wholesale revision of the text.” Your post script comment is an unjust imposition of an un-Catholic meaning to my words: CSGibson wrote: The statement "if the SSPX is regularized without any corrections of the texts of Vatican II, there will be no corrections made." implies that the Roman Church is not itself the guarantor of faith, and that God requires some kind of external impulsion, before, He, in His good time, brings about a resolution of the ecclesial crisis of the last 50 years. The comment “implies” nothing of the sort. It only means that if Bishop Felly joins a modernist Rome as a voice of tradition among many voices without the errors of the Council being corrected, the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to correct these errors will have been in vain. Nonetheless, the errors will be corrected. God will find a more worthy defender. Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:55 pm    Post subject:

Drew, Actually, I do see your point about the "religious submission of will and intellect" to a teaching which is not definitive, and it would be helpful to see some clarification upon this. At the same time I find it hard to believe that those concerned in the SSPX-Rome discussions, have not themselves brought this matter up. The fact that Rome has over the past few years consistently allowed various traditionalists (eg the Good Shepherd Institute) to make qualified submission to the council formulas, suggests a fairly broad interpretation of the professio. I am sorry if my postscript seemed unjust, but I must say, that is how your comment struck me. God is ultimately in charge and He will resolve all these things in His good time,but, we don't know when.

Moderators

dona nobis pacem



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 289

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:59 am    Post subject:

Was "religious submission of will and intellect" intact going into Vatican II or is there another group who perhaps participated in the council who are guilty of what others are now being accused of? Didn't Cardinal Ottaviani ask for a doctrinal discussion during Vatican II? Wasn't his request for a doctrinal discussion rejected based on the argument that this was a pastoral council and there was no intention of defining anything infallible? IF Vatican II consists of the any doctrine at all, a doctrinal discussion was indeed necessary during the Vatican II council. IF Vatican II consists of the any doctrine at all, didn't a bait and switch scam occur at the council? It seems unless I am mistaken that Msgr. Pozzo is referring to non-doctrinal documents of Vatican II as "magisterium" in this talk here: http://en.gloria.tv/?media=200450 Is it correct to refer to non-doctrine as "magisterium"? If so how come we never see a definition of magisterium to include non-doctrine? Am I the only one who thinks that not understanding the magisterium correctly is a big part of the diabolical disorientation that Fatima spoke of?

Moderators

St.Justin
†


Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742
Location: Pensacola, Florida

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:16 am    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Drew, Actually, I do see your point about the "religious submission of will and intellect" to a teaching which is not definitive, and it would be helpful to see some clarification upon this. At the same time I find it hard to believe that those concerned in the SSPX-Rome discussions, have not themselves brought this matter up. The fact that Rome has over the past few years consistently allowed various traditionalists (eg the Good Shepherd Institute) to make qualified submission to the council formulas, suggests a fairly broad interpretation of the professio. I am sorry if my postscript seemed unjust, but I must say, that is how your comment struck me. God is ultimately in charge and He will resolve all these things in His good time,but, we don't know when. There is a distinct difference between assent of Faith, which is required for Dogmas and assent of mind and will, which is required of everyone towards the leaders of an organization. Of course this assent of intellect and will assumes morally correct and faithful doctrinal leadership. Where this is absent no assent is possible.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:27 pm    Post subject:

Yes, of course. There is some confusion, because as Salaverri said, non infallible teachings require only a mental and conditional assent, and this is I believe the view of most theologians. Now, a religious assent of mind and will, is not the same thing as an assent of Faith, but the Professio Fidei seems to omit the conditional assent, and jump directly to a religious assent, even for non definitive, thus potentially non infallible teachings. Personally, I don't see anything malicious in this. It is highly likely that the drafters of the text had in mind the widespread dissent on the various moral teachings of recent Popes regarding contraception etc. and they were trying to close a possible loophole. Where ambiguities in a teaching are present, no assent can be made until the meaning is clarified. Mons Gherardini who is a respected Roman theologian has himself asked for clarifications upon a number of points concerning the Conciliar and postconciliar statements in his two recent books. And from what we know of the preamble given to the SSPX the CDF itself is willing for some formulations to be criticized. Thus it seems inappropriate to exaggerate the significance of the Professio Fidei of 1989 with regard to these questions.

Moderators

St.Justin
†


Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742
Location: Pensacola, Florida

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:39 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Yes, of course. There is some confusion, because as Salaverri said, non infallible teachings require only a mental and conditional assent, and this is I believe the view of most theologians. Now, a religious assent of mind and will, is not the same thing as an assent of Faith, but the Professio Fidei seems to omit the conditional assent, and jump directly to a religious assent, even for non definitive, thus potentially non infallible teachings. Personally, I don't see anything malicious in this. It is highly likely that the drafters of the text had in mind the widespread dissent on the various moral teachings of recent Popes regarding contraception etc. and they were trying to close a possible loophole. Where ambiguities in a teaching are present, no assent can be made until the meaning is clarified. Mons Gherardini who is a respected Roman theologian has himself asked for clarifications upon a number of points concerning the Conciliar and postconciliar statements in his two recent books. And from what we know of the preamble given to the SSPX the CDF itself is willing for some formulations to be criticized. Thus it seems inappropriate to exaggerate the significance of the Professio Fidei of 1989 with regard to these questions. exactly

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:32 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Yes, of course. There is some confusion, because as Salaverri said, non infallible teachings require only a mental and conditional assent, and this is I believe the view of most theologians. Now, a religious assent of mind and will, is not the same thing as an assent of Faith, but the Professio Fidei seems to omit the conditional assent, and jump directly to a religious assent, even for non definitive, thus potentially non infallible teachings. Personally, I don't see anything malicious in this. It is highly likely that the drafters of the text had in mind the widespread dissent on the various moral teachings of recent Popes regarding contraception etc. and they were trying to close a possible loophole. Where ambiguities in a teaching are present, no assent can be made until the meaning is clarified. Mons Gherardini who is a respected Roman theologian has himself asked for clarifications upon a number of points concerning the Conciliar and postconciliar statements in his two recent books. And from what we know of the preamble given to the SSPX the CDF itself is willing for some formulations to be criticized. Thus it seems inappropriate to exaggerate the significance of the Professio Fidei of 1989 with regard to these questions. I disagree for several reasons: 1. The Magisterial power of the Church derived from the attribute of Infallibility for which Jesus Christ said, “He who heareth you, heareth Me,” teaches without the possibility of error on questions of faith and morals. The moral prohibition against contraception is a definitive Magisterial teaching. The same is true for Magisterial judgments where infallible principles of Catholic morality are applied to condemn new actions consequent to technological developments such as in vitro fertilization. The Church in these matters does not have to command submission to anyone but God. 2. The current problem did not happen by accident. Its structure reflects serious planning and care of implementation. There is the adoption of a new term “Authentic magisterium” from an ecumenical “pastoral” council inserted into the document, Lumen Gentium, that is titled, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” that in fact is not a “dogmatic” decree. Lumen Gentium then articulates the first principles of the new ecclesiology. These theoretical first principles are then practically developed and applied in the pastoral documents, Unitatis Redintegratio, the Vatican II decree on Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate, the declaration in the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions and Dignitatis Humanae, on Religious Liberty. All acts of the “authentic magisterium.” 3. The problem for the Modernists was how to make the decrees from a pastoral council appear to be binding the conscience of faithful Catholics. The term was then inserted in a Profession of Faith where everything else in the Profession of Faith is a dogma except this novel article. It then is detailed in two documents from the CDF and inserted in canon law as a criminal offense with a “just penalty” for any dissenters. I cannot find any reference to the term, “authentic (authorized) magisterium,” in any official Vatican document before Lumen Gentium. Unconditional “submission of the will and mind… religious submission of the soul” (LG), can only be given to God and not to any man, not even the Pope. 4. dona nobis pacem wrote: “Am I the only one who thinks that not understanding the magisterium correctly is a big part of the diabolical disorientation that Fatima spoke of?” I think this comment is correct. The term “magisterium” was equivocal before Vatican II but with Lumen Gentium, it is officially given another entirely new meaning. The “authentic (authorized) magisterium” refers to the person, and it means that the person holds the proper office of the Church that is ‘authorized’ either by engaging the Church’s attribute of Infallibility to teach in the name of God without the possibility of error, or its attribute of Authority to teach by virtue of his grace of state. Since acts of the “authentic magisterium” can be anything the Pope does, to accuse a person of “dissent from the authentic magisterium” can mean anything or nothing. The necessary distinction between the Church's attributes of Infallibility and Authority is being conflated. 5. Most importantly, as I said in a previous post, there is a precedent in Pennsylvania where a bishop through his judicial vicar authorized a letter accusing traditional Catholics of “heresy” and “schism” for “dissent from the authentic magisterium.” This accusation was published in the diocesan newspaper and announced from the pulpit of every parish in the diocese. A request by the accused for a canonical inquiry was refused and a letter to the CDF to address the charge was simply referred to the Ecclesia Dei Commission which is not within their competency. It is not simply a theoretical problem. It is a tool to force compliance with Modernist innovations. There has been no one in this diocese of Pennsylvania accused of “dissent from the authentic magisterium” for using contraception. 6. The recent comment from Pope Benedict that the “Church… demands” the faithful to accept the freedom of Muslims to move into Germany and build mosques for public worship while at the same time Christians are being killed in Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sudan and other Muslim countries throughout the world at an estimated rate of 105,000/year (http://europenews.dk/en/node/44053) is a beyond understanding. This recent act of the “authentic magisterium” is betrayal of our faith and our duty to bear witness of the Gospel to Muslims. Even from a natural perspective, it is a form of insanity. These very Muslims will one day cut the throats of his own nation. Maybe that is how God will bring about His punishment for our sins. Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:26 pm    Post subject:
Drew, I think you are reading too much into this. It is the object of the magisterium which is at issue, not its subject, When Pius XII addressed beekeepers, or Vatican II talked of social communications these both could be considered exercises of the "authentic magisterium", but no one seriously suggests that their content is part of the Catholic Faith.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:54 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Drew, I think you are reading too much into this. It is the object of the magisterium which is at issue, not its subject, When Pius XII addressed beekeepers, or Vatican II talked of social communications these both could be considered exercises of the "authentic magisterium", but no one seriously suggests that their content is part of the Catholic Faith. CS Gibson: In the last fifty years on the heels of an ecumenical pastoral council we have witnessed the greatest crisis of the Church in its entire history. The crisis is one of Faith and there is no precedent to compare it in its speed and comprehension. There is a direct thread from the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaching of "salvation by implicit desire", to Lumen Gentium that authoritatively references the 1949 Letter, to the Prayer Meeting of Assisi. The document Lumen Gentium has redefined the nature of the Church that make the pastoral documents possible. Lumen Gentium makes the pretentious claim to be a “dogmatic constitution” and contains within itself the very mechanism to enforce its novelties upon the faithful. The purpose of this posting is to explain that mechanism. What Pope Benedict did in Germany with the Lutherans, the Orthodox, the Muslims and the Jews is disgraceful and what he plans in Assisi will be worse. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote a letter to eight cardinals before the Prayer Meeting at Assisi took place in 1986 in an effort to enlist the help of the curia to protest the planned event. Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Cardinals before Assisi Prayer Meeting wrote: Your Eminence, Confronted with events taking place in the Church that have John Paul II as their author and faced with those he intends carrying out at Taize and Assisi in October, I cannot refrain from addressing you and begging you in the name of numerous priests and faithful to save the honor of the Church never before humiliated to such an extent in the course of her history. The speeches and actions of John Paul II in Togo, Morocco, and the Indies cause a righteous indignation to rise up in our heart. What do the Saints, the holy men and women of the Old and New Testaments make of this? What would the Holy Inquisition do if it were still in existence? He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue. The scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundations. If faith in the Church, the only ark of salvation, disappears, then the Church herself disappears. Is John Paul II to continue ruining the Church, in particular at Assisi, with the planned procession of religions in the streets of the town of Saint Francis and the sharing out of religions in the chapels of the basilica with a view to practicing their worship in favor of peace as conceived by the United Nations? It is what Cardinal Etchegaray, in charge of this abominable congress, has announced. Is it conceivable that no authoritative voice has been raised in the Church to condemn these public sins? Where are the Machabees? Eminence, for the honor of the one true God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, make a public protest, come to the help of the still faithful bishops, priests and Catholics. Eminence, if I took the step of contacting you it is because I do not doubt your sentiments in this matter. I am also addressing this appeal to those Cardinals named below so that eventually you may be able to work together. May the Holy Ghost come to your aid, and please accept, Eminence, my devoted and fraternal greetings in Christ and Mary. Archbishop Lefebvre, Emeritus Bishop-Archbishop of Tulle, Letter to eight Cardinals concerning Assisi I, Econe, August 27, 1986 In this letter Archbishop Lefebvre says Pope John Paul II “mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue,” with the Church, “the only ark of salvation…. shaken to its very foundation.” The Pope is “ruining the Church” by "sharing…chapels of the basilica” with pagans, heretics, infidels, and Jews. He then asks if it is “with a view to practicing their worship in favor of peace as conceived by the United Nations?” He pleads, “Is it conceivable that no authoritative voice has been raised in the Church to condemn these public sins? Where are the Machabees?” The reference to the "United Nations" as the expected vehicle in "favor of (world) peace" was proposed by Pope Paul VI: Pope Paul VI, address to United Nations wrote: “This message is born from our historic experience. It is as a specialist in humanity that we bring to this Organization the approval of our more recent predecessors, the entire Catholic episcopate, and our own, convinced as we are that this Organization represents the obligatory pathway for modern civilization and world peace….. No more war, never again war. Peace, it is peace that must guide the destinies of people and of all mankind.” Pope Paul VI, October 4, 1965, Address to the United Nations Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the United Nations grounded the hope for world peace in the principle of Religious Liberty. In this speech he quotes Paul VI offering the services of the Church as a “specialist in humanity.” The same recurrent theme that underscored his recent trip to Germany. "Pope Benedict XVI, address to the United Nations wrote: Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian….. It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens….. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order. ….. My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family…..The United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the Church is committed to contributing her experience “of humanity”, developed over the centuries among peoples of every race and culture, and placing it at the disposal of all members of the international community. This experience and activity, directed towards attaining freedom for every believer, seeks also to increase the protection given to the rights of the person. Those rights are grounded and shaped by the transcendent nature of the person, which permits men and women to pursue their journey of faith and their search for God in this world. Recognition of this dimension must be strengthened if we are to sustain humanity’s hope for a better world and if we are to create the conditions for peace, development, cooperation, and guarantee of rights for future generations….. That is why the Church is happy to be associated with the activity of this distinguished Organization, charged with the responsibility of promoting peace and good will throughout the earth. Dear Friends, I thank you for this opportunity to address you today, and I promise you of the support of my prayers as you pursue your noble task. Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the United Nations, April 18, 2008 Pope Benedict then followed up his address to the United Nations with his encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, in which he calls for the reform of the United Nations into a one world government with police powers to enforce its laws. Pope Benedict XVI, Carita In Veritate wrote: “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need for….reform of the United Nations Organization….. so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth…. for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy…. to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace….. for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority.” Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas In Veritate, July 28, 2009 Pope Benedict recently elevated the doctrine of Religious Liberty into a “Church…demand.” as a necessary prerequisite for world peace. He is promoting a world brotherhood religion for peace and his recent trip to Germany was entirely in this ecumenical vein. And as he said, the "The United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the Church is committed to contributing her experience 'of humanity'….. at the disposal of all members of the international community….. That is why the Church is happy to be associated with the activity of this distinguished Organization, charged with the responsibility of promoting peace and good will throughout the earth." Onward to Assisi. There has never been a crisis in defense of the Faith in which blood was not shed and this will be no different. Every papal quote provided above is an act of the "Authentic Magisterium" and Rome has not given any indication that she intends to reject her modernist errors and return to the Faith of our Fathers. You may think I am “reading too much into this” and perhaps you are correct, but I think it’s more likely that modernist Rome will someday accuse those who reject the “Church…demands” on Religious Liberty of “heresy” for their “dissent from the Authentic Magisterium” and the state will prosecute them for “hate crimes.” Archbishop Lefebvre asked, “Where are the Machabees?” All the Machabees were martyred. Drew

Moderators

fool-of-a-Took



Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 23

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:30 pm    Post subject:
Thought this would be of interest in this discussion... http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-10348/

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:20 am    Post subject:

The text cited is adequate as far as it goes, but I'd opt for dici.org for a full and accurate account. Sine we are back in this thread it may be worth pointing out once and for all that the Latin "magisterium authenticum" the teaching authority which is genuinely papal/ episcopal. I wouldn't put too much weight on the obsequium religiosum either. This also is not an assent of faith. On the other hand if no such assent was required to undefined doctrine, then much of the Catholic doctrine, especially in morals would be up for grabs. And on a final note: once again those agents provacateurs who delight in attacking the SSPX leadership have demonstrated a failure to understand the SSPX position.

Moderators

fool-of-a-Took



Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 23

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:13 pm    Post subject:

My reason for posting the article is because it confirms that, in order to be regularized, the SSPX would have to accept the Profession of Faith. Fellay: “We cannot accept the Preamble as it is” Bishop Bernard Fellay Bishop Bernard Fellay The Lefebvrians ask for modifications to the Doctrinal Preamble delivered to them by the Holy See Andrea Tornielli vatican city “It is true that this Doctrinal Preamble cannot receive our endorsement, although leeway has been allowed for a “legitimate discussion” about certain points of the Council. What is the extent of this leeway? The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options. And whatever the result of these talks may be, the final document that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public.” This was the much awaited reply given by Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X, to Vatican authorities. Last September, following a series of doctrinal talks between Lefebvrians and the Holy See, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith delivered the doctrinal preamble text to the Lefebvrians. The Vatican made it clear that it considered their agreement to the points made in the document, vital, if they were to enter into full communion again with the Catholic Church. This would also make it possible for the Church to offer them some canonical status. The interview published by Fellay in the Society’s official online bulletin (www.laportelatine.org) reveals that attached to the Preamble, was a note, explaining that Lefebvrians could ask for clarifications in order to suggest any modifications. However, the heads of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada and Mgr. Guido Pozzo, are of the opinion that no substantial changes can be made to the document. In actual fact, in the Preamble, the Society was asked to sign the “Professio fidei”, a requirement for anyone who assumes an ecclesiastical office. Three steps of assent are required for the profession of the Catholic faith which distinguishes between revealed truths, dogmatic declarations and ordinary Church teaching. In terms of the latter, the Church states that Catholics are called to guarantee “religious respect of intellect and will” for the teachings that the Pope and the college of bishops “put forward when they exercise their authentic teaching,” even if these are not proclaimed in a dogmatic way, as is the case with most of the Magisterium’s documents. The Holy See has not therefore excluded the possibility of keeping discussions open on certain points of the Second Vatican Council which the Lefebvrians still consider problematic. The path towards a potential agreement with the Brotherhood still seems to be all uphill and there have been rumours over the past few weeks of a strong internal opposition to the Vatican proposal. The interviewer asked Fellay: “Given that this document is not very clear, wouldn’t it have been simpler to tell your Vatican interlocutors that it could not be taken into consideration?” “The simplest thing, perhaps, but not the most honest - the Brotherhood’s Superior replied - Since the note that accompanies it foresees the possibility of making clarifications, to me it seems necessary to ask for them instead of refusing them a priori. This in no way prejudges the response that we will give.” The Lefebvrian bishop stated that the only eternal doctrine is the Creed, the profession of the Catholic faith, while “the Second Vatican Council” was a pastoral council “which did not define dogmas and did not add any new articles of faith such as “I believe in religious freedom, in ecumenism, in collegiality…” Today, is the Creed no longer sufficient for being recognised as Catholics? Does it not convey the Catholic faith in its entirety?” The bishop seemed to say that the Creed and not the Preamble, which contains the “Professio fidei”, is the common text that the Brotherhood would be prepared to subscribe its name to. It is obvious that the interview did not provide the final response. The Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X is well aware of the internal oppositions with regard to the agreement with Rome, particularly among Lefebvrian leaders. In the written text that will be sent to the Vatican authorities, it appears he will be asking for substantial changes to the Doctrinal Preamble: the fact that the current text “was not met with approval” within the Society, clearly shows that it was not just the commas or the nuances that cause disagreement, but essential aspects of the document. The game is therefore not over yet, and the ball is now in the Vatican’s court as the Lefebvrians await a response to their reply. http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-10348/

Moderators

HaereticoComburendo



Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 5

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: LG; 1989 PROFESSION OF FAITH; & the “AUTHENTIC MAGIS

Profession of Faith, 1989 wrote: What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive. Profession of Faith, 1989, third of the three added paragraphs So what is to exclude the possibility of interpreting the above in light of tradition, that is, allowing the faithful to suspend assent in the cases dictated by the old manuals? Swearing "religious submission", while certainly the taking-on of a very serious responsibility, is still just swearing religious submission. Just because the term "religious submission" forms part of a Professio Fidei does not mean that the religious submission has been upgraded to an assent of faith. Likewise, the canonical discipline can be interpreted to allow only for enforcement in true cases of religious disobedience, not when conscience actually requires the withholding of assent. (I'm not saying that common error doesn't exist on the above, nor that bishops today generally enforce canons justly. Public clarification of this point would be very helpful, and that may well be the path down which Bp. Fellay is taking the discussions.)

Moderators

Roberto Hope



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 118
Location: Monterrey, Mexico

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:44 am    Post subject: 1989 Profession of Faith
What if Bishop Fellay asked Rome for the Pope, all Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to sign Pius X's Anti Modernist Oath before the SSPX agrees to submit to the articles added to the 1989 Profession of Faith? Is the Syllabus of errors not Church Magisterium to which all Catholics owe assent of intellect and will? _________________ Quia, tu est Deus, fortitude mea

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 8960

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:35 pm    Post subject: Re: 1989 Profession of Faith

Roberto Hope wrote: What if Bishop Fellay asked Rome for the Pope, all Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to sign Pius X's Anti Modernist Oath before the SSPX agrees to submit to the articles added to the 1989 Profession of Faith? Is the Syllabus of errors not Church Magisterium to which all Catholics owe assent of intellect and will? John Vennari, in a terrific speech about the hermeneutic of continuity, talked with great specificity about the Holy Father's swearing of the Oath at the time of his ( i.e., Benedict XVI's ) ordination as priest. ALL ordinands were required to do so, then, of course. Your argument, Roberto, offers an intriguing strategy by which the whole facade of the Revolution could be knocked over were there a sufficient number of well informed Catholic observers and interested parties present at just such a test of wills. However, since the discussions are secret, that won't likely be the case. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Re: LG; 1989 PROFESSION OF FAITH; & the “AUTHENTIC MAGIS

HaereticoComburendo wrote: So what is to exclude the possibility of interpreting the above in light of tradition, that is, allowing the faithful to suspend assent in the cases dictated by the old manuals? “Submission of the will and intellect to the….. authentic Magisterium” is not a “traditional” concept. It is a novelty of Vatican II, first seeing the light of day in Lumen Gentium. The “old manuals,” meaning recognized authorities on moral theology, would call the unqualified submission of the “will and intellect,” or as Lumen Gentium phrases it, “religious submission of will and mind…. religious assent of soul,” to any creature whomsoever, as “idolatry.” When the Magisterium of the Church (i.e.: the Church’s attribute of infallibility) is engaged and the Pope declares a dogma, an article of divine and Catholic faith, we believe it not on the authority of the Pope but on the “authority of God” (Vatican I). It is to God that we make a “religious submission of will and mind…. religious assent of soul.” Furthermore, there are serious circumstantial problems. Firstly, the word “Magisterium,” which is used equivocally, is capitalized implying that the “submission” is related to the power of the Church to teach infallibly in the name of God when it most certainly is not, and, secondly, this article is included in a “1989 Profession of Faith” where every other article in the profession is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith, manifests an intention to corrupt by contextual deception. When the cake is then iced with canonical penalties for “criminal” dissent it should be enough to make anyone gag. The article Fool-of-a-Took posted by Andrea Tornielli from Vatican Insider affirms that the “1989 Profession of Faith” is the essential non-negotiable element of the “Doctrinal Preamble.” The article by Msgr. Fernando Ocariz of Opus Dei published on December 2 in Catholic World News will soon likely be revealed as a lame preemptive attempt to defend the “1989 Profession of Faith” and the “Doctrinal Preamble.” The SSPX has a great opportunity to take the initiative. The SSPX should call the additional third paragraph in the "1989 Profession of Faith" what it is, “idolatry.” Make it loud and clear that Pope Benedict is asking for himself what can only be given to God. Let Pope Benedict attempt to reconcile to the world the novel doctrine of Religious Liberty, his necessary first principle for ‘world peace,’ with “religious submission of the intellect and will, … assent of the soul,” to his personal opinions on the pain of "criminal" prosecution. If Msgr. Ocariz’s publication is the best they can offer I do not doubt that the SSPX can make him very foolish in an open exchange. It is important that the SSPX demand formal infallible dogmatic decrees from the Chair of Peter on the doctrinal teachings of Vatican II with the addition of a Syllabus of Errors condemning false interpretations. Every Catholic possesses this right to appeal on matters of faith to the Chair of Peter (Second Council of Lyons, Denz. 466 & First Vatican Council, Denz. 1830) but if this is done now by Bishop Fellay, it could not be ignored. Satan was given a free hand with Job but his power was strictly limited, he could not “put his hand upon his person,” he could not kill Job. So with the Church of God, Satan may have been given a free hand to persecute but he cannot “kill.” There is a reason why the Modernists have gone to so much trouble to give the appearance of binding the Catholic conscience to false doctrines of Vatican II when by every reasonable consideration they already possess the authority to simply declare these ‘doctrines’ to be dogmas of faith. God has not permitted, nor will He ever permit this to happen. Dogma is the traditional Catholics only weapon, but this weapon is the immutable, infallible word of God and nothing can stand against God. Lastly, the Modernist like to pretend that there exists in dogma both perennial and contingent elements. That of course if true would destroy all dogma and make any dogmatic declaration by the current Pope to address the current problems absurd. The nature of dogma has to be defended. Vatican Council I: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” The Council pronounced a solemn anathema against anyone who would attempt to change the sense of such dogma. Canon III “If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrine propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.” Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:09 pm    Post subject:

Drew, I agree with you about the inclusion of the the authentic magisterium in the 89 Professio, obviously coming directly from LG, I earlier said that it was done without malicious intent, and I still thank that's probably true; but whatever the intent, I also agree that the problem lies with the concept itself. What I would like to see are the official relationes of the Council and what was being said by the bishops when this article was discussed. It seems to have slipped through without any opposition from the International Group who were generally very active in looking for modernists tricks. I can only assume that it slipped through without anyone taking notice of it, or just as likely the naive Roman School theologians actually thinking it was a good thing. Am I right in thinking that the very term authentic magisterium occurs for the first time in Salaverri, and that he coined it to defend Humani Generis against the idea that it was not binding on theologians? Ocariz certainly has opened up a hornet's nest, I too await with interest the SSPX reply.

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1688

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:08 am    Post subject: Re: LG; 1989 PROFESSION OF FAITH; & the “AUTHENTIC MAGIS

Drew wrote: “Submission of the will and intellect to the….. authentic Magisterium” is not a “traditional” concept. It is a novelty of Vatican II, first seeing the light of day in Lumen Gentium. "Submission of the will and intellect" precisely describes the cultish duty of a shtetl Jew to his rabbi. This recalls my personal experience, before moving to tradition, of assisting at a very conservative diocesan parish and with the Legionaries of Christ. In these environments, duty to truth is subordinated to a supposed greater duty of submission. At the time I described the stifling environment as "Stalinist." Looking back, I think "Talmudic" would have been a more accurate description. Drew wrote: The “old manuals,” meaning recognized authorities on moral theology, would call the unqualified submission of the “will and intellect,” or as Lumen Gentium phrases it, “religious submission of will and mind…. religious assent of soul,” to any creature whomsoever, as “idolatry.” Is there citation or authoritative commentary equating such an ecclesiastical power grab with idolatry? I am not trying to give you busy work. There is St. Paul's anathema against "another gospel" and his resistance to St. Peter, but how often were these principles deployed against ecclesiastical usurpation down through the centuries? Is there precedent for repulsing attempts to asign the guru powers of rabbis to churchmen? If not, it might be difficult to find ready-made citations to use against such usurpation and base revelation combined with logic will have to suffice. The metamorphosis of philo-semitic churchmen into rabbi-priests would seem to qualify as a form of stealth Judaizing.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:15 am    Post subject:

Colomba, Personally, I don't know enough about the various types of Judaism in prewar Russia to comment on the attitude of I presume Hasidic judaism towards rabbis. There is of course a long cultural tradition of extreme submission in the Eastern Mediterranean and Slavic worlds which is very alien to Catholicism. The Legionaries poor things were dragged into a cult which thank God is now under serious investigation, slow though it may be.

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1688

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:50 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Colomba, Personally, I don't know enough about the various types ofJudaism in prewar Russia to comment on the attitude of I presume Hasidic judaism towards rabbis. There is of course a long cultural tradition of extreme submission in the Eastern Mediterranean and Slavic worlds which is very alien to Catholicism. The Legionaries poor things were dragged into a cult which thank God is now under serious investigation, slow though it may be. Legionaries I knew held their founder Maciel in worshipful awe and reverence. This appeared strange to me but I knew little about Maciel except for his reputation of leading what appeared to be almost the last conservative hope in conciliarism. However, I did know about JP2's liberalism and when I saw outwardly conservative Legionaries holding JP2 in the same cult-like reverence that they held the mysterious Maciel, I understood that even Legionarie conciliarism was rotten to the core. Supposedly conservative Catholics idolizing the liberal JP2 fall into the same cultish trap as the Legionaries who idolized Maciel.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:32 am    Post subject:

St.Justin wrote: CS Gibson wrote: The proper object of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority are those truths contained in Revelation as well as the truths of natural reason necessary to guarantee Revelation. The meaning of magisterium mere authenticum so far as I can see refers to those teachings which are not proposed as the last word on any given matter, but whicih nonetheless express the mind of the Pope on a subject relating to Catholic doctrine with regard to faith, and more likely morals. The exact meaning of 'authenticum" is somewhat unclear. it is a very recent term, but seems to refer to those teachings which touch upon problems not explicitly mentioned in Scripture or Tradition. Something like the papal condemnation of in vitro fertilization may perhaps be classed in this category. As to whether Papal speeches on general or political subjects represent doctrinal statements of course depends upon the subject matter. As to Archbishop Lefebvre et al, they most certainly accepted Vatican II as a general council of the Church. Mons Lefebvre later proposed revisions of certain texts which were, by the Roman authorities tthemselves considered to be 'pastoral' statements, and not dogmatic in nature. But to suggest that the Archbishop actually repudiated the Council in globo shows a misunderstanding of his position. That's about my take on it but it sounds like something different when it is being used in: Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty: §2 or in can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary. Note that when speaking of this submission to the authentic magisterium (or we could just as well call it Legitimate Teaching Authority) we are still talking about a perfectly legitimate object of that authority, ie Faith or Morals. New situations have arisen in the world over time in which neither a Pope nor a Council can define a point, thereby making it definitive until more time passes, but which still require our assent. Pius XII's condemnation of polygenism springs to mind. And as Drew cited earlier Fr Nicholas Jung writing in the 1930's already used the term religious assent.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 8960

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:44 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: New situations have arisen in the world over time in which neither a Pope nor a Council can define a point, thereby making it definitive until more time passes, but which still require our assent. Pius XII's condemnation of polygenism springs to mind. And as Drew cited earlier Fr Nicholas Jung writing in the 1930's already used the term religious assent. There is nothing new under the sun. Would you grant, CS, that while the ontological distinction between the laity and those ordained and, through Church "management" ( ever, one prays, inspired by the Holy Ghost ) subsequently promoted to decision-making offices, is a fact of the Faith, and that by virtue of the charism of office, the laity are required to always demonstrate respect and due obedience in matters of faith and morals to those in authority, that - when there is a demonstrable contradiction between the authoritative voice of Tradition and the Perennial Magisterium and the theological orientation and the voice of the bishops in a time of rupture, such as now -the laity and well informed clergy ( e.g., Trads and Traditional priests and bishops ) said laity and clergy act properly in pointing out where the rupture occurs and offering fraternal correction? In other words, while the Deposit of the Faith ever remains unassailable and intact, when Modernist-influenced authorities seek to muddy the waters and call for "obedience" to novelties, it is the duty of the Catholic to resist. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:12 am    Post subject:

My point was really more directly related to the terminology authentic magisterium and religious assent, neither one of which properly understood is itself a novel idea, even if these terms are not found exactly in those forms in the past. If we start going back through works of theology we find that terms like Universal and Ordinary Magisterium have only been employed since the 19nth Century, but the idea is there already at Nicea. Only Popes and bishops have a magisterium, so the ontological difference between Mrs Jones and Fr Smith is irrelevant magisterially speaking. But I presume what you have in mind are the documents of Vatican II. To respond to this I'd say that the assent required to any teaching depends upon the subject matter. Just to make things more confusing, in theology this is spoken of as the "object"! But the point is that if something pertains to Faith or Morals then it falls under the competence of the magisterium, and when the Bishops of the entire world in union and concord with the Pope propose a doctrine concerning Faith or Morals then assent is required. I am not aware of any truly new doctrine in Vatican II which was proposed in this way, though there are quite a few perfectly traditional doctrines which are mentioned in VII. I realize that quite a number of theologians are divided on just what the teachings on religious liberty or ecumenism constitute. Certain matters definitely touch the Faith such as the sacramentality of the episcopate which was already a fairly common theological opinion before Vatican II. Collegiality when read in the light of the Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium which is an integral part of the conciliar teaching and added specifically at the request of the International Group of Fathers, is not a novelty either. Ecumenism is a policy, not really a doctrine at all, at least not as presented in Unitatis Redintegratio as I understand it. Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty is definitely the most difficult text in that it gives the appearance of being self contradictory. At first saying that it leaves intact the traditional teaching and then making statements which appear to say nearly the opposite. Some years ago a Dominican named Fr Crean OP wrote a piece in Christian Order a semi-traditionalist English monthly in which he argued, I thought fairly persuasively, that the teachings could be conciliated in favour of the Perennial Magisterium. It may be online. All that being said, I believe St Thomas Aquinas says somewhere that if anyone whoever he may be teaches a doctrine which is unorthodox, fraternal correction is to be applied. The most extreme case of this historically was that of Pope John XXII whose teachings on the beatific vision were unsound and he was pressured by cardinals, and the Holy Roman Emperor to agree to abide by the findings of a theological commission whose members he was free to choose. The principle is a perennial one; but prudence is also a consideration. The traditional manuals of moral theology point out that fraternal correction must be exercised in different ways with regard to the rank of the person being corrected. The modern democratic age has lost all sight of this. Thus though in principle any Catholic may exercise fraternal correction the probability of success grows exponentially with that of the rank of the corrector in his relationship to the correctee. In addition we need to remember the respect owed to the office of the person being corrected which goes beyond the simply prudential and exists in the realm of the virtue of justice as well. Those of very high rank have a right to be treated with due respect which they cannot lose as long as they retain that rank. They thus must be treated differently from those of lower rank. So I suppose what I am saying is that while any Catholic possesses in an absolute sense the right to employ fraternal correction to any other Catholic, the ranks of the persons involved must be taken into account when considering the manner of the correction.

Moderators

Walburga



Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 179

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:20 am    Post subject:
With all due respect, Mr Gibson, may the proverbial fig tree not fall upon your head. _________________ Salve Regina

Moderators

phaley
†


Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 2437

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:52 am    Post subject:

Gibson wrote: Quote: To respond to this I'd say that the assent required to any teaching depends upon the subject matter. Just to make things more confusing, in theology this is spoken of as the "object"! But the point is that if something pertains to Faith or Morals then it falls under the competence of the magisterium, and when the Bishops of the entire world in union and concord with the Pope propose a doctrine concerning Faith or Morals then assent is required. What about St. Athanasius and Arianism? Would we be required to assent to what a majority of the hierarchy and the pope at that time held with respect to that heresy? In my mind it is not about what most of the hierarchy and the pope believe but what is in accord to what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times. Can it not be said that in modern times a majority of the hierarchy and several popes have held to another heresy condemned by St. Pius X, the synthesis of all heresies - Modernism? _________________ Pre-Vatican II Catholic-16 yrs Catholic schooling.

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1688

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:54 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: if something pertains to Faith or Morals then it falls under the competence of the magisterium, and when the Bishops of the entire world in union and concord with the Pope propose a doctrine concerning Faith or Morals then assent is required. I am not aware of any truly new doctrine in Vatican II which was proposed in this way [...] Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty is definitely the most difficult text in that it gives the appearance of being self contradictory. At first saying that it leaves intact the traditional teaching and then making statements which appear to say nearly the opposite. Some years ago a Dominican named Fr Crean OP wrote a piece in Christian Order a semi-traditionalist English monthly in which he argued, I thought fairly persuasively, that the teachings could be conciliated in favour of the Perennial Magisterium. If any potential new doctrine of Vatican II would require assent, then traditionalists are certainly motivated to find council documents absent of new doctrine. That would explain Fr. Crean's motivation to deconstruct the apparent innovations in Dignitatis Humanae that contradict Quanta Cura and the historic Catholic state. Is that necessary? If Dignitatis Humanae really conflicts with infallible doctrine, does not the principle of infallibility itself nullify the newer contradictions?

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:28 pm    Post subject:

phaley wrote: Gibson wrote: Quote: To respond to this I'd say that the assent required to any teaching depends upon the subject matter. Just to make things more confusing, in theology this is spoken of as the "object"! But the point is that if something pertains to Faith or Morals then it falls under the competence of the magisterium, and when the Bishops of the entire world in union and concord with the Pope propose a doctrine concerning Faith or Morals then assent is required. What about St. Athanasius and Arianism? Would we be required to assent to what a majority of the hierarchy and the pope at that time held with respect to that heresy? In my mind it is not about what most of the hierarchy and the pope believe but what is in accord to what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times. Can it not be said that in modern times a majority of the hierarchy and several popes have held to another heresy condemned by St. Pius X, the synthesis of all heresies - Modernism? No not at all. The magisterium of the Pope and bishops was that of Nicea. What happened afterwards is that a great number of bishops then dissented from it. Liberius under great pressure from the Arian Emperor caved in and acquiesced for a time, but never taught Arianism. These actions were in no sense magisterial.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:36 pm    Post subject:

Columba wrote: CS Gibson wrote: if something pertains to Faith or Morals then it falls under the competence of the magisterium, and when the Bishops of the entire world in union and concord with the Pope propose a doctrine concerning Faith or Morals then assent is required. I am not aware of any truly new doctrine in Vatican II which was proposed in this way [...] Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty is definitely the most difficult text in that it gives the appearance of being self contradictory. At first saying that it leaves intact the traditional teaching and then making statements which appear to say nearly the opposite. Some years ago a Dominican named Fr Crean OP wrote a piece in Christian Order a semi-traditionalist English monthly in which he argued, I thought fairly persuasively, that the teachings could be conciliated in favour of the Perennial Magisterium. If any potential new doctrine of Vatican II would require assent, then traditionalists are certainly motivated to find council documents absent of new doctrine. That would explain Fr. Crean's motivation to deconstruct the apparent innovations in Dignitatis Humanae that contradict Quanta Cura and the historic Catholic state. Is that necessary? If Dignitatis Humanae really conflicts with infallible doctrine, does not the principle of infallibility itself nullify the newer contradictions? I have never suggested that Dignitatis Humanae as a decree teaches anything infallibly. I don't think anyone else does either. Fr Crean's attempt is to read DH in the light of the Perennial Magisterium. I don't think he is claiming DH is infallible.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 760

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:40 pm    Post subject:
Walburga wrote: With all due respect, Mr Gibson, may the proverbial fig tree not fall upon your head. I appreciate your concern as I have never cared much for figs.

Moderators

Page 2

Go to Page 1, 3

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1902

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:14 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Columba wrote: CS Gibson wrote: if something pertains to Faith or Morals then it falls under the competence of the magisterium, and when the Bishops of the entire world in union and concord with the Pope propose a doctrine concerning Faith or Morals then assent is required. I am not aware of any truly new doctrine in Vatican II which was proposed in this way [...] Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty is definitely the most difficult text in that it gives the appearance of being self contradictory. At first saying that it leaves intact the traditional teaching and then making statements which appear to say nearly the opposite. Some years ago a Dominican named Fr Crean OP wrote a piece in Christian Order a semi-traditionalist English monthly in which he argued, I thought fairly persuasively, that the teachings could be conciliated in favour of the Perennial Magisterium. If any potential new doctrine of Vatican II would require assent, then traditionalists are certainly motivated to find council documents absent of new doctrine. That would explain Fr. Crean's motivation to deconstruct the apparent innovations in Dignitatis Humanae that contradict Quanta Cura and the historic Catholic state. Is that necessary? If Dignitatis Humanae really conflicts with infallible doctrine, does not the principle of infallibility itself nullify the newer contradictions? I have never suggested that Dignitatis Humanae as a decree teaches anything infallibly. I don't think anyone else does either. Fr Crean's attempt is to read DH in the light of the Perennial Magisterium. I don't think he is claiming DH is infallible. Sorry, it was not my intent to imply that you suggested DH is infallible. What if innovations within DH prevent it from being read in the light of the Perennial Magisterium? Might DH simply be discarded in that case?

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:45 pm    Post subject:

CS, thank you for your thoughtful answer. I gather from responses thus far that Wallburga, Phaley and Columba grasped well what I was getting at ( although my preamble really did look like a White House press conference question more than a concise question, for which I apologize ). Allow me to go a bit beyond and get to what I think is the real heart of the matter - power ( or, more simply, politics )... To me, the hijacking was both theological ( i.e., a number of heretics previously sent into the outer darkness by Pius XII are "miraculously" rehabilitated by John XXIII and his staff, an admission made by a key member of the Curia to Abp. LeFebvre even before the Council began ). Once their disciples, e.g., Seunens, Bea, etc., had disposed of the preconcilar schemae, they immediately set about "packing the court" with their own disciples and minions to assure a liberal tone, tenor and result to all subsequent legislation. Aware that there remained enough resistance, even among the most remotely active bishops in attendance ( e.g., the original rejection of the New Mass ad experimentum by a majority of bishops ), which would only result in their progressive ideas blowing up in their faces, they set about crafting ambiguous documents ( n.b., the "time bombs" about which numerous Traditionalists have written ) in order to slip past the nodding guards of orthodoxy. Thus, CS, I posit that the objective intent of those whose hands were at the controls of Vatican II, the progressives ( i.e., raw Modernists ), was nothing if not revolutionary, anti-Tradition ( just read their own hubristic claims, even during the Council! ) and deliberately pointed at undermining the strict, meticulously stated spirit and letter of the Perennial Magisterium of Eternal Rome. If indeed, the objective truth is what I have just related, how is it that any Catholic may presume to defend such a disastrous Revolution or to give even respect to its novelties and tyrranical warnings about "assent"? The comments, above, about St. Athanasius obtain perfectly here. Yes, from John XXIII through Benedict XVI, the validity of the Holy See has been continued, externally for certain and internally whenever any of these popes have acted in conformity with the Perennial Magisterium entrusted into their hands. Of that, I have, and let no one else have, any doubt. But no!, a thousand times, no! to sophistry and verbal engineering seeking to bring into the Church and Her disciplines whatever smacks of liberalism Modernism, progressivism. Each, although all related, is rank heresy and must be called what it is. I grant that there are a thousand possible "explanations" and rationalizations for why John or Paul or JPII or Benedict came to think as they did. Those are all beside the point, however. I further grant that the "democratization" of the Church ( Heaven forbid! ) has resulted in a laity-run officialdom filled with many whose adherence to orthodoxy is, at least, suspect and has created a host of new structural problems which only reinforce the difficulty of any well intended bishop or pope to correct and reverse matters. But even that is beside the point, as well. The point is whether the pure doctrine of the Church is always and everywhere being faithfully handed down from one generation to the next. If it is, may God be praised. But if not, then the wise Catholic must be most vigilant and withhold his approval of whatever may carry the least taint of heresy. I conclude with the earlier point I made about power. Those in power, or at least far too many of them, since the 1960s, have either overtly sought or merely acquiesced to radical changes in how the Church is perceived and how She conducts her public worship and other works or mercy and propitiation. What else could explain the rise of liberation theolgy, faux ecumenism, the whole "new minisitries" disaster, the utter ruination and spectacle-ization of even the papal Mass ( e.g. WYD ) and the plague of filthy impurity sanctioned in diocesan "sex education" programs? You may note that even whole governments and corporate giants have undergone an intellectual and moral transformation into accepting similar catastrophes, making them official policy matters. This is all from hell, as anyone with even a modicum of theological insight must admit. And, while restrained within certain limits, the power of the diabolical is nevertheless real and can radically overturn whole nations in a very short time, e.g., 18th Century France and the resulting communist revolution. Had Rahner, Kung, Suenens, Bea, et al, been consigned to muck out stables at a Carthusian monastery for the rest of their lives, instead of being brought into the Vatican Council as "master teachers" and had Papa Roncalli had the great good fortune to have made a retreat under Abp. LeFebvre or at least to have spent a few months in deep discussions with Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton AND Sr. Lucia of Fatima, well before ascending to his papacy, perhaps we would all be living in a much more holy and peaceful era than we are. But that did not happen. And, in its stead, the secular and unfortunately not very holy "spiritual" powers that be came into their own. One must be exceedingly cautious about placing credence in a very great deal of what these "officials" attempt to enforce. Especially when manifestly clear to any reasoning mind that the sources of these ideas have long been severely condemned by the holy popes and councils of earlier eras. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

nana
†


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 156

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:44 pm    Post subject:
So very glad that the southern California materialism has not yet robbed you of your prowess with the pen, Patrick!!

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:52 am    Post subject:

gpmtrad wrote: CS, thank you for your thoughtful answer. I gather from responses thus far that Wallburga, Phaley and Columba grasped well what I was getting at ( although my preamble really did look like a White House press conference question more than a concise question, for which I apologize ). Allow me to go a bit beyond and get to what I think is the real heart of the matter - power ( or, more simply, politics )... To me, the hijacking was both theological ( i.e., a number of heretics previously sent into the outer darkness by Pius XII are "miraculously" rehabilitated by John XXIII and his staff, an admission made by a key member of the Curia to Abp. LeFebvre even before the Council began ). Once their disciples, e.g., Seunens, Bea, etc., had disposed of the preconcilar schemae, they immediately set about "packing the court" with their own disciples and minions to assure a liberal tone, tenor and result to all subsequent legislation. Aware that there remained enough resistance, even among the most remotely active bishops in attendance ( e.g., the original rejection of the New Mass ad experimentum by a majority of bishops ), which would only result in their progressive ideas blowing up in their faces, they set about crafting ambiguous documents ( n.b., the "time bombs" about which numerous Traditionalists have written ) in order to slip past the nodding guards of orthodoxy. Thus, CS, I posit that the objective intent of those whose hands were at the controls of Vatican II, the progressives ( i.e., raw Modernists ), was nothing if not revolutionary, anti-Tradition ( just read their own hubristic claims, even during the Council! ) and deliberately pointed at undermining the strict, meticulously stated spirit and letter of the Perennial Magisterium of Eternal Rome. If indeed, the objective truth is what I have just related, how is it that any Catholic may presume to defend such a disastrous Revolution or to give even respect to its novelties and tyrranical warnings about "assent"? The comments, above, about St. Athanasius obtain perfectly here. Yes, from John XXIII through Benedict XVI, the validity of the Holy See has been continued, externally for certain and internally whenever any of these popes have acted in conformity with the Perennial Magisterium entrusted into their hands. Of that, I have, and let no one else have, any doubt. But no!, a thousand times, no! to sophistry and verbal engineering seeking to bring into the Church and Her disciplines whatever smacks of liberalism Modernism, progressivism. Each, although all related, is rank heresy and must be called what it is. I grant that there are a thousand possible "explanations" and rationalizations for why John or Paul or JPII or Benedict came to think as they did. Those are all beside the point, however. I further grant that the "democratization" of the Church ( Heaven forbid! ) has resulted in a laity-run officialdom filled with many whose adherence to orthodoxy is, at least, suspect and has created a host of new structural problems which only reinforce the difficulty of any well intended bishop or pope to correct and reverse matters. But even that is beside the point, as well. The point is whether the pure doctrine of the Church is always and everywhere being faithfully handed down from one generation to the next. If it is, may God be praised. But if not, then the wise Catholic must be most vigilant and withhold his approval of whatever may carry the least taint of heresy. I conclude with the earlier point I made about power. Those in power, or at least far too many of them, since the 1960s, have either overtly sought or merely acquiesced to radical changes in how the Church is perceived and how She conducts her public worship and other works or mercy and propitiation. What else could explain the rise of liberation theolgy, faux ecumenism, the whole "new minisitries" disaster, the utter ruination and spectacle-ization of even the papal Mass ( e.g. WYD ) and the plague of filthy impurity sanctioned in diocesan "sex education" programs? You may note that even whole governments and corporate giants have undergone an intellectual and moral transformation into accepting similar catastrophes, making them official policy matters. This is all from hell, as anyone with even a modicum of theological insight must admit. And, while restrained within certain limits, the power of the diabolical is nevertheless real and can radically overturn whole nations in a very short time, e.g., 18th Century France and the resulting communist revolution. Had Rahner, Kung, Suenens, Bea, et al, been consigned to muck out stables at a Carthusian monastery for the rest of their lives, instead of being brought into the Vatican Council as "master teachers" and had Papa Roncalli had the great good fortune to have made a retreat under Abp. LeFebvre or at least to have spent a few months in deep discussions with Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton AND Sr. Lucia of Fatima, well before ascending to his papacy, perhaps we would all be living in a much more holy and peaceful era than we are. But that did not happen. And, in its stead, the secular and unfortunately not very holy "spiritual" powers that be came into their own. One must be exceedingly cautious about placing credence in a very great deal of what these "officials" attempt to enforce. Especially when manifestly clear to any reasoning mind that the sources of these ideas have long been severely condemned by the holy popes and councils of earlier eras. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I certainly didn't mind the White House press conference approach at all. First Fr Wiltgen, and now Professor dei Mattei in his "Concilio Vatican Secondo:Una Storia mai Scritta" have demonstrated at great length the manoeuvrings of the modernists. Even while the council was sitting, "Xavier Rynne" whose real name was Fr Murphy, wrote articles for the US press regaled his readers with the battles of his liberal heroes against the "reactionary Roman Curia" . But I don't think this requires us to read the concilar documents as the modernists themselves do. Believe it or not there is a modernist way of reading both Trent and Vatican In which they will say that a phrase like 'the evil doctrine of x" is condemned and then turn it around and say this only means that the "evil" part of the doctrine is condemned, not the alleged "good" part. Ambiguity is their stock and trade. Because so much of V2 is written in a narrative style rather than in the traditional clear propositional form, it is easy to draw from it ambiguous conclusions. But these texts can also be read in a very orthodox way. Afyer all, the most traditional of bishops, including Mons Lefebvre voted in favour of nearly all of them. Archbishop Lefebvre and many others only voted against two in their final form, Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. now there is very little which is strictly doctrinal in GS. Most of it is just commentary on the supposed goodness of the modern world, which I think even Fr Ocariz, judging from his recent article in OR, would agree isn't binding on anyone. I think traditionalists have to be careful in not falling into the trap of accepting the modernists' version as the truth. In the end any text must be read objectively in the light of what it actually says, not the intention of the people who wrote it. Personal intentions and motivations really don't mean much when it comes down to the contents of the text. What you say about the abuse of power and hijacking seems sadly only too true. It remains the duty of Catholics to maintain the Faith, even if those who ought to do so fail in their duty, for whatever reason. I have often wondered what would have happened if John XXIII had lived longer. He was known personally to love the liturgy. It's difficult to imagine him abolishing the Papal High Mass, or allowing any radical alteration of the TLM generally. Probably more vernacular permitted, and some simplification of the rubrics, but certainly no New Mass.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:58 pm    Post subject:

C.S. By this time, the "official" interpretation of the Vatican II documents has already been delivered time and again by the post V-II magisterium; and the resulting interpretation has confirmed the worse fears of the Conservative fathers of the Council. L.G. Which claimed that the "Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church was a direct attack on the doctrine of the the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body being one and the same. From this small aperture the next step was "U.R." which affirmed that the "Spirit of Christ" did not refrain from using false "churches" as means of salvation(!!!). The bold face lie that these false entities have some sort of relationship and unity with the Catholic Church (the only, and unique immaculate bride of Christ) was not long in coming. The false idea of the "partial communion" thingy comes directly in a straight line from L.G. The next step was to extend the salvific power to non-Christian sects including Judaism; as witness in the Assissi spectacles. There cannot be an orthodox interpretation of the documents, because the authors of the very documents have been telling what their true heretical interpretation has been for the last 40 odd years. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:29 pm    Post subject:

Michael Wilson wrote: C.S. By this time, the "official" interpretation of the Vatican II documents has already been delivered time and again by the post V-II magisterium; and the resulting interpretation has confirmed the worse fears of the Conservative fathers of the Council. ...the authors of the very documents have been telling what their true heretical interpretation has been for the last 40 odd years. To quote ECS's least favorite VII-ese neologism, in a certain sense, this very clear analysis is borne out by Msgr. Gheradini's own criticisms and those of Romano Amerio, to name but two luminaries who did not lose their minds in the 1960s, as did so many others. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

Canadian Trad



Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 283

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:08 pm    Post subject:

Okay I will follow Vatican II then, and it taught that conscience overrules everything. Noone, including myself can be "coerced" by any Church authority into bending the rights of the intellect to their unspeakable agenda against my own free will and conscience. How do you like them apples. Vatican II still lets me off the hook folks. You can't call for religious liberty then begin holding an inquisition of "enemies" like us over the same Council that called for said freedom and liberty.

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1902

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:56 am    Post subject:

Canadian Trad wrote: Okay I will follow Vatican II then, and it taught that conscience overrules everything. Noone, including myself can be "coerced" by any Church authority into bending the rights of the intellect to their unspeakable agenda against my own free will and conscience. How do you like them apples. Vatican II still lets me off the hook folks. You can't call for religious liberty then begin holding an inquisition of "enemies" like us over the same Council that called for said freedom and liberty. Vatican II does not let traditionalists off the hook. Liberalism is and always has been a one way street because it imposes the moral obligation of giving way to error but grants no corresponding permanent right to the truth. The old pagan rule of "kill or be killed" is suppressed under Christendom but reemerges when the defense of Christendom is abandoned under liberalism.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:34 am    Post subject:

Columba wrote: Vatican II does not let traditionalists off the hook. Liberalism is and always has been a one way street because it imposes the moral obligation of giving way to error but grants no corresponding permanent right to the truth. The old pagan rule of "kill or be killed" is suppressed under Christendom but reemerges when the defense of Christendom is abandoned under liberalism. I really LIKE that! Very well said. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:04 am    Post subject:

Michael Wilson wrote: C.S. By this time, the "official" interpretation of the Vatican II documents has already been delivered time and again by the post V-II magisterium; and the resulting interpretation has confirmed the worse fears of the Conservative fathers of the Council. L.G. Which claimed that the "Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church was a direct attack on the doctrine of the the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body being one and the same. From this small aperture the next step was "U.R." which affirmed that the "Spirit of Christ" did not refrain from using false "churches" as means of salvation(!!!). The bold face lie that these false entities have some sort of relationship and unity with the Catholic Church (the only, and unique immaculate bride of Christ) was not long in coming. The false idea of the "partial communion" thingy comes directly in a straight line from L.G. The next step was to extend the salvific power to non-Christian sects including Judaism; as witness in the Assissi spectacles. There cannot be an orthodox interpretation of the documents, because the authors of the very documents have been telling what their true heretical interpretation has been for the last 40 odd years. I don't think we can describe the mere use of the Latin verb subsitere as a direct attack on the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It can be read in a perfectly orthodox sense as "contiinues in". To my knowledge all the most conservative bishops including Mons Lefebvre voted for it. The personal intention of the authors of magisterial documents really has no bearing upon their interpretation once they are promulgated.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:53 am    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Michael Wilson wrote: C.S. By this time, the "official" interpretation of the Vatican II documents has already been delivered time and again by the post V-II magisterium; and the resulting interpretation has confirmed the worse fears of the Conservative fathers of the Council. L.G. Which claimed that the "Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church was a direct attack on the doctrine of the the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body being one and the same. From this small aperture the next step was "U.R." which affirmed that the "Spirit of Christ" did not refrain from using false "churches" as means of salvation(!!!). The bold face lie that these false entities have some sort of relationship and unity with the Catholic Church (the only, and unique immaculate bride of Christ) was not long in coming. The false idea of the "partial communion" thingy comes directly in a straight line from L.G. The next step was to extend the salvific power to non-Christian sects including Judaism; as witness in the Assissi spectacles. There cannot be an orthodox interpretation of the documents, because the authors of the very documents have been telling what their true heretical interpretation has been for the last 40 odd years. I don't think we can describe the mere use of the Latin verb subsitere as a direct attack on the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It can be read in a perfectly orthodox sense as "contiinues in". To my knowledge all the most conservative bishops including Mons Lefebvre voted for it. The personal intention of the authors of magisterial documents really has no bearing upon their interpretation once they are promulgated. The intention of the redactors of the documents are important, especially if there is a question as to the meaning of the document; in the case of the V-II documents, formulated in a deliberately ambiguous manner, the intention of the redactors is clearly necessary to understand them. Secondly, we have the official explanation of the post conciliar magisterium, that helps us understand what the correct meaning and application the documents contain. Here is a small sample of the testimony of Card. Ratzinger, as to the contradiction between the "subsist in" and the "est" of L.G. vs Mistici Corporis"; which signaled a radical change in ecclesiology: Quote: At this point it becomes necessary to investigate the word subsistit somewhat more carefully. With this expression, the Council differs from the formula of Pius XII, who said in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi: "The Catholic Church "is" (est) the one mystical body of Christ". The difference between subsistit and est conceals within itself the whole ecumenical problem. The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy. The Greek word hypostasis that has a central role in Christology to describe the union of the divine and the human nature in the Person of Christ comes from that vision. Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has an autonomous existence. Here it is a question precisely of this. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in this world can be found in the Catholic Church. This can take place only once, and the idea that the subsistit could be multiplied fails to grasp precisely the notion that is being intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wished to explain the unicity of the Catholic Church and the fact of her inability to be multiplied: the Church exists as a subject in historical reality. The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists" in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject — true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:52 am    Post subject:

I am not so sure that the difference which Cardinal Ratzinger says cannot be resolved in a logical manner cannot be in fact be resolved in a logical manner. The Church of Christ is one and in communion with the Roman Pontiff. But at the same time elements of this Church, in her sanctifying role for example can be found outside of her visible borders. Whenever baptism is conferred the sacrament confers grace. Whenever a penitent is absolved by the schismatic Eastern Churches, that penitent is truly absolved. These are not new teachings of Vatican II, but existed well before it. These actions can only be actions of the Church even if the minister performing them is schismatic and excommunicated. Even Catholics in a case of true necessity can approach a schismatic to receive absolution. The case of a dying person comes to mind. Now if this sacrament were in no sense an act of the Church, this would not be possible. The Church provides per modum actus, jurisdiction for this; something which would not be possible if the act could not be made one of the Church. I don't see this, which is a long standing teaching to be an innovation. In saying this, however, I do not deny that such a policy has been grossly distorted in recent times to suggest a false ecumenism. But the principle is traditional.

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1902

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: I am not so sure that the difference which Cardinal Ratzinger says cannot be resolved in a logical manner cannot be in fact be resolved in a logical manner. The Church of Christ is one and in communion with the Roman Pontiff. But at the same time elements of this Church, in her sanctifying role for example can be found outside of her visible borders. Whenever baptism is conferred the sacrament confers grace. Whenever a penitent is absolved by the schismatic Eastern Churches, that penitent is truly absolved. These are not new teachings of Vatican II, but existed well before it. These actions can only be actions of the Church even if the minister performing them is schismatic and excommunicated. Even Catholics in a case of true necessity can approach a schismatic to receive absolution. The case of a dying person comes to mind. Now if this sacrament were in no sense an act of the Church, this would not be possible. The Church provides per modum actus, jurisdiction for this; something which would not be possible if the act could not be made one of the Church. I don't see this, which is a long standing teaching to be an innovation. In saying this, however, I do not deny that such a policy has been grossly distorted in recent times to suggest a false ecumenism. But the principle is traditional. Even if the ambiguity of Lumen Gentium leaves room for orthodox interpretation, the dominant interpretation appears to be unorthodox. Would not acceptance of LG indicate acceptance of its dominant interpretation? If, on the other hand, the SSPX unilaterally stipulated its own separate, orthodox interpretation of Lumen Gentium, that could work against "full communion."

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:16 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: I am not so sure that the difference which Cardinal Ratzinger says cannot be resolved in a logical manner cannot be in fact be resolved in a logical manner. The Church of Christ is one and in communion with the Roman Pontiff. But at the same time elements of this Church, in her sanctifying role for example can be found outside of her visible borders. Whenever baptism is conferred the sacrament confers grace. Whenever a penitent is absolved by the schismatic Eastern Churches, that penitent is truly absolved. These are not new teachings of Vatican II, but existed well before it. These actions can only be actions of the Church even if the minister performing them is schismatic and excommunicated. Even Catholics in a case of true necessity can approach a schismatic to receive absolution. The case of a dying person comes to mind. Now if this sacrament were in no sense an act of the Church, this would not be possible. The Church provides per modum actus, jurisdiction for this; something which would not be possible if the act could not be made one of the Church. I don't see this, which is a long standing teaching to be an innovation. In saying this, however, I do not deny that such a policy has been grossly distorted in recent times to suggest a false ecumenism. But the principle is traditional. The "elements of sanctification" do not belong to the false sects that use them; U.R. #3 and several other post conciliar documents, state that these elements create a bond of partial communion between the Church and the false sects; which is false. A Second unwarranted leap is made, when the same documents state that the "Spirit of Christ" uses these false man made religions as instruments of salvation. Also, Card. Ratzinger was the one who was the instrument for introducing the infamous "subsist in", into L.G. and it was done in order to open a hole through which the heresy of false ecumenism could be smuggled into the Church; and he did it expressly to "overcome" the Catholic doctrine of identity between the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body; he knows what he is talking about, when he states that they are contradictory. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:39 pm    Post subject:

Cardinal Ratzinger: Quote: The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists" in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject — true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division. False affirmations: 1.There is "ecclesial reality" outside of the Catholic Church. 2.There are true local Churches that exist (apart from the Catholic Church). 3. There are "different ecclesial communities that exist and are legitimate (but not Catholic). This is why Card. Ratzinger is correct when he affirms that there is a contradiction between the terms; because they represent two different Ecclesiologies. The Traditional doctrine, which identified the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body; and which denied any ecclesial reality outside of Herself; and the Conciliar doctrine that posits the parallel existence of other churches, that operate and are part of the Mystical body, and yet are not members of the Church (that is, not united to her in faith, government and worship). I might also add, that this error also attacks the "unity" of the Church by positing a permanent division existing in the Mystical Body: the tragedy of ecclesial division. But the Church in Her nature is one; the dissidents who leave the Church, do not affect Her unity, as Leo XIII stated so clearly in Satis Cognitum. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:59 pm    Post subject:

Michael Wilson wrote: Cardinal Ratzinger: Quote: The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists" in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject — true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division. False affirmations: 1.There is "ecclesial reality" outside of the Catholic Church. 2.There are true local Churches that exist (apart from the Catholic Church). 3. There are "different ecclesial communities that exist and are legitimate (but not Catholic). This is why Card. Ratzinger is correct when he affirms that there is a contradiction between the terms; because they represent two different Ecclesiologies. The Traditional doctrine, which identified the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body; and which denied any ecclesial reality outside of Herself; and the Conciliar doctrine that posits the parallel existence of other churches, that operate and are part of the Mystical body, and yet are not members of the Church (that is, not united to her in faith, government and worship). I might also add, that this error also attacks the "unity" of the Church by positing a permanent division existing in the Mystical Body: the tragedy of ecclesial division. But the Church in Her nature is one; the dissidents who leave the Church, do not affect Her unity, as Leo XIII stated so clearly in Satis Cognitum. Outstanding answer, Michael! Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton would be very proud of you! _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:15 am    Post subject:

Michael Wilson wrote: Cardinal Ratzinger: Quote: The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists" in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject — true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division. False affirmations: 1.There is "ecclesial reality" outside of the Catholic Church. 2.There are true local Churches that exist (apart from the Catholic Church). 3. There are "different ecclesial communities that exist and are legitimate (but not Catholic). This is why Card. Ratzinger is correct when he affirms that there is a contradiction between the terms; because they represent two different Ecclesiologies. The Traditional doctrine, which identified the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body; and which denied any ecclesial reality outside of Herself; and the Conciliar doctrine that posits the parallel existence of other churches, that operate and are part of the Mystical body, and yet are not members of the Church (that is, not united to her in faith, government and worship). I might also add, that this error also attacks the "unity" of the Church by positing a permanent division existing in the Mystical Body: the tragedy of ecclesial division. But the Church in Her nature is one; the dissidents who leave the Church, do not affect Her unity, as Leo XIII stated so clearly in Satis Cognitum. This post slipped by me, so I am responding quite late to it. I am not quite sure where the text of Cardinal Ratzinger comes from. The most recent official commentary on the unicity of the Church comes from the document Dominus Jesus of 2000. Sections 16 & 17 deal with the question. It makes it pretty clear that the One Church is the Catholic Church and that the separated Churches derive their sacramental efficacy from the One Church. I believe that the Eastern Churches have always been spoken of as Churches and not as sects. Down through the centuries when they have been reconciled they have always been so as corporate bodies, which is not the case with Protestants, all of whom must still be received individually, as is the case with the Anglican ordinariates. They possess valid sacraments which confer grace. No one denies that. Incidentally the famous "subsist in" was proposed by Fr Sebastian Tromp SJ, a member of the Roman School and the principal writer of Mystici Corporis of Pius XII.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject: Origin of "Subsistit in''

C.S., I have this old version of the "Subsist", and considering how this novel term has been used to destroy the identity between the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ, I believe this is the true story: This is from Fr. Schmitberger and one of his newsletters; what the date is, I don't know: Quote: Subsist in origin "If we were to clearly identify the Catholic Church simpliciter —that is, just simply —with the Church of Christ, the whole ecumenical movement would burn out. The Protestants would be angered that the Catholic Church had defined that their churches were not the Church of Christ!" And, so, the liberal spirits wanted to find another notion and another word to give the definition. They got the help they needed from a German Protestant, Pastor Schmidt, an observer invited by Cardinal Bea to take part in the Second Vatican Council. And he made the written proposal that in this definition, "The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church," the word "is" be replaced by "subsistit in." He handed this proposal to the then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who was at this time the Council expert [peritus] of Cardinal Frings from Cologne, Germany. Fr. Ratzinger in turn gave the proposal to Cardinal Frings who presented it before the Council, and the words "subsistit in" were incorporated into Lumen Gentium. So it has its origin from the Protestants. We were made aware of this fact by a priest from South Tyrol [old Austria, annexed to become today’s northern Italy —Ed.], who wrote last year saying that he knew this Protestant pastor, and that he was still living. We asked him to send us the address. So we wrote to this Protestant pastor, and he confirmed by a letter of August 3rd that he was the one who handed over this proposal to Fr. Ratzinger. So we see that Fr. Ratzinger had taken a very active role to introduce the words "subsistit in" and rewrite a very important definition of the Catholic Church. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:55 pm    Post subject: Origin of Card. Ratzinger's statement

C.S. stated: Quote: I am not quite sure where the text of Cardinal Ratzinger comes from Here is the source of the famous "contradiction" quote: Ratzinger Cardinal Joseph, The Ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium. This article appears in English translation for the first time. Cardinal Ratzinger made the presentation at a symposium on the reception of the Council held in Rome in November 2000. In the article the Cardinal alerts us to the need to keep before us in a global way the Council’s teaching on the Church, in order to appreciate its richness. Grasping the richness of the mystery of the Church keeps us from forgetting that the Church is a mystery of faith that no one theology or pastoral plan can ever encompass.(???) _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:17 pm    Post subject:

C.S. Stated: Quote: I believe that the Eastern Churches have always been spoken of as Churches and not as sects. Down through the centuries when they have been reconciled they have always been so as corporate bodies, which is not the case with Protestants, all of whom must still be received individually, as is the case with the Anglican ordinariates. They possess valid sacraments which confer grace. No one denies that. That they were addressed as "Churches" is correct if you mean as a matter of curtesy; wrong, if you mean that they were ever regarded as either "real" Churches, part of the Mystical Body or in some way connected to the Catholic Church. A careful reading of the main pre-conciliar papal documents that treat of Ecclesiology, will suffice to prove this; for example: "Mistici Corporis" or "Satis Cognitum"; and this goes also for the pre-Conciliar theological manuals. That there were large groups of these schismatics that returned to unity corporately, is true; but there were no individual conversions, is false. Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church attempted to proselytize all men, believing in the truth that there was only one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. That they possess valid sacraments is not the point. The Council and post Conciliar magisterium, made an unwarranted leap, from valid sacraments, to "partial communion'' of the sects with the Catholic Church; . Also, the valid Sacraments that the sects possess, are not theirs, but rather belong to the Catholic Church. There are no "Orthodox" or "Protestant" Sacraments, only Catholic ones. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:52 am    Post subject:

Michael, Thanks for your comments. That Tromp proposed "subsist in" comes from the papers in the Vatican archives. This is a recent discovery. I've heard the other story too; but I think the latest trumps that. (sorry for the pun) Also, I think Domius Jesus which is an official document surpasses Ratzinger's comments. As to the Eastern Churches, I'd be cautious in saying that Rome was merely acting out of curtesy. It was never the custom of the Church to allow curtesy to override fundamental principles. There is a real difference between the schismatic East and protestantism. Yes, of course, there have been individual converts, there still are. But the fact is that the Church has always treated the reception of an entire "church" corporately. Numerous Eastern bodies have gone in and out of communion with the Roman See over the centuries. Antioch being a case in point. When trying to assess the Catholic position one must also look at the practice of the Church. I don't consider myself competent to judge the expression "partial communion". The fact that the most traditional bishops at the Council accepted it, including Archbishop Lefebvre, who by his own account only voted against Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, does cause me at any rate to pause before accusing them of error. I'd still take the opinion of Ottaviani or Siri over that of laymen or priests who today find error in texts which the former approved. It is entirely true that modernists have distorted the meaning of numerous texts to support their own errors, but until such time as competent authority says otherwise, I won't look for errors in what good scholastic thinkers endorsed.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:31 pm    Post subject:

GS Gibson wrote: Incidentally the famous "subsist in" was proposed by Fr Sebastian Tromp SJ, a member of the Roman School and the principal writer of Mystici Corporis of Pius XII. CS Gibson: There are now two versions on the origin of “subsist in.” The version publically affirmed by Pastor Wilhelm Schmidt and personally confirmed to Fr. Franz Schmidberger and this recent revelation attributing the term to Fr. Sebastian Tromp. They both cannot be true. Pastor Wilhelm Schmidt, a Protestant minister says that he made the suggestion to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the ecumenist, modernist biblical scholar, patron of Fr. Annibale Bugnini, and confessor to Pope Pius XII, who in turn recruited the support of Fr. Ratzinger who then convinced Cardinal Frings of Cologne to bring it to the Council. This story has been personally verified by Fr. Franz Schmidberger who contacted Pastor Schmidt. http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=396461&highlight=#396461. That claim has a ring of truth about it for a couple of reasons: firstly, the claim was made publicly by Pastor Schmidt when other principles in the story were alive. No one ever, as far as I have seen, accused Pastor Schmidt of fabricating the claim. Another reason is that the understanding of the term “subsist in” by liberal theologians constituted a consistent consensus in the 1960s and 1970s. Several quotations were provided in the above referenced discussion. No voice of dissent from this consensus was published for years including the voice of Fr. Ratzinger, or for that matter, Fr. Tromp who did not die until 1975. The only argument used against Pastor Schmidt's version is the lack of corroboration in the private journals of other principals involved in the story. It is true that this story of Pastor Schmidt is not supported in these journals but that would be expected because it was “official policy” that the Protestant “observers” at Vatican II did not have any active input but, these same observers have made statements that confirm they were actively consulted and made contributions. John Vennari's documentation for this is well known. This accusation is important because the claim that Fr. Tromp is the author of “subsist in” is not supported by anything beyond his alleged private journal. Not just the personal journal entries of other principals but from the official minutes of the commissions. Some background on this claim that Fr. Tromp is responsible for the invention of this heresy is helpful. The claim first saw the light of day in 2004 publication by Alexandra von Teuffenbach. Teuffenbach was a graduate student at the Gregorian University under Professor Fr. Karl J. Becker, S. J. The claim is that she was doing primary source research on Sebastian Peter Cornelis Tromp, S.J. (16 March 1889 – 8 February 1975) for a doctrinal thesis. From Fr. Tromp’s “diaries” she discovered that he was the author of “subsist in.” She subsequently wrote a book, only available in German, publishing Fr. Tromp, diaries. The diaries were written in Latin. Fr. Becker used the research of Teuffenbach to write his theological opinion that “subsist in” is a more precise theological term than “is” and does not contradict earlier Church doctrine. His opinion was adopted by the CDF almost verbatim. Fr. Becker, a professor at the Gregorian for about thirty years, a German and good friend of Cardinal Ratziner, was used by him as an authority for decisions from the CDF. He was just this month made a cardinal by Pope Benedict. John Allen, National Catholic Reporter wrote: “In 2005, German Jesuit Father Karl Becker, an influential consulter to the doctrinal congregation, published a front-page article in L’Osservatore ... It argued that the phrase “subsists in” was intended “to reiterate that the church of Christ, with the fullness of the means instituted by Christ, perdures [continues, remains] forever in the Catholic Church,” anticipating almost word-for-word the Vatican’s conclusion two years later. Father Becker is an intellectual architect of the evangelical Catholic school, and his article drew on a dissertation written under him at Rome’s Gregorian University by a young German scholar named Alexandra von Teuffenbach, one of the first to draw on the diaries of Jesuit Father Sebastian Tromp, a theological expert at Vatican II. Father Tromp helped pioneer the term ‘subsists in.’ None of this means the Vatican is claiming that only Catholics can be saved. The congregation stated that other Christian bodies can be “instruments of salvation,” and there’s nothing in the document to roll back Vatican II’s teaching that non-Christians can also be saved “in ways known only to God.” Yet evangelical Catholics reject suggestions that all religions are equally valid; ultimately, they insist, salvation comes from Christ, and the church is the primary mediator of this salvation. This belief remains the basic motivation for missionary work.” John L. Allen, "Reform rollback or emerging 'sane modernity' – Evangelical Catholicism triumphant, Vatican watcher states", National Catholic Reporter, June 18, 2010 The problems with this claim: 1) The claim is unverifiable. In Teuffenbach’s article published in Faith Magazine in 2004, she says that in the adoption of the term the “procedure did not correspond to the usual conciliar working method and was unprecedented,” that “there is nothing in the acts of the sub-commission about changes requested by bishops,” and “the competent sub-commission was not able to have the revised text printed” before it was “submitted to the plenary assemble of the Theological Commission.” The debate on the question was orally presented. There is nothing in this story that is in the official record. Alexandra von Teuffenbach, Faith Magazine wrote: All seven drafts prepared for the first chapter of a conciliar constitution on the Church were modified by Tromp himself. In each of them he insisted on the following addition: “Therefore this Sacred Assembly teaches and declares solemnly that there is only one Church of Christ which we ourselves celebrate in the Creed as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, which the Saviour himself bought on the Cross … and which the Risen Lord entrusted to Peter and his successors to govern, which alone rightly can be called the (Roman) Catholic Church.” Tromp was successful. The text was adopted for the first draft, which was proposed to the Conciliar Fathers in the autumn of 1962. The Central Commission approved it without difficulties. There was only one modification to Tromp’s proposal, at the request of Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne: “the Risen Lord” was changed to “after his resurrection”. The text remained unchanged even after Gerard Philips, a theologian from Louvain, had revised and shortened the Schema of the Theological Preparatory Commission. No one objected to Tromp’s sentence. In the autumn of 1963, so many proposals for changing the text were coming in that the Commission had to be divided into sub-commissions, each of which was responsible for one section. One of these sub-commissions dealt with the sentence that Tromp had inserted into the conciliar document. Although there is nothing in the acts of the sub-commission about changes requested by bishops, the sub-commission reformulated the sentence entirely. This procedure did not correspond to the usual conciliar working method and was unprecedented. Usually the commission put its draft together with the original before the Council Fathers– they could then approve the text, propose changes or reject it. In Tromp’s case, the sentence was simply changed. It was stripped of all its solemnity and it no longer resembled a definition. Nevertheless its core content remained: “The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ.” Furthermore, the Commission substituted the Latin est (is) with adest (is present / is there). The competent sub-commission was not able to have the revised text printed but had to submit it to the plenary assembly of the Theological Commission. And so, in the presence of many theologians and bishops, the first articles of the Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, were discussed on 25th and 26th November at 4 p.m. Philips chaired the debate. Each paragraph was read and a rather quick discussion ensued as to whether or not it should be amended. Not everyone agreed on article 8. It was proposed that they re-insert est instead of adest, to which the sub-commission made no objection. Tromp alone proposed subsistit instead of adest – successfully. On 21st November 1964, the complete text of Lumen Gentium was approved, with 2151 votes in favour and 5 against. It would seem, therefore, that the enormous change that has taken place in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church over the last forty years has in fact been based on a single word inserted into the Constitution – practically unnoticed and unwilled by any of the Council Fathers – at the instigation of a theologian whose manifest intention was to achieve exactly the opposite. Alexandra von Teuffenbach, The History of the Word "Subsistit" in Lumen Gentium, FAITH Magazine July-August 2004 2) Teuffenbach says that she obtained her information from Fr. Tromp’s “diaries.” Fr. Tromp was the secretary for the Doctrinal Commission at Vatican II; Msgr. Gérard Philips (1899-1972) was the vice-secretary. Both of them were members of the Preparatory Theological Commission. According to the University of Leuven’s Centre for the Study of the Second Vatican Council, the only archival source from Fr. Tromp is his “diaries” and the archive states that the diaries only cover his time at the Preparatory Commission from 1960 to 1962. The “diaries” do not cover the time in question. If Fr. Tromp had produced diaries from his tenure as secretary to the Doctrinal Commission for Vatican II under Cardinal Ottaviani, the Centre knows nothing about them. Why has it taken 40+ years for this fact to be published that Fr. Trope wrote a journal as secretary for the Doctrinal Commission? How is it that an unknown doctrinal student makes this discovery of these important primary source documents? 3) The Leuven Centre archives contain all of Msgr. Philips notes during the Council. It was Msgr. Philips, the vice-secretary for the Doctrinal Commission, who chaired the “debate” on the question that changed the term in the document to “subsist in.” Apparently Msgr. Philips said nothing about the question in his notes that relate to Fr. Tromp or we would have heard about it years ago. Why not? If corroborating support for Pastor Schmidt who is officially not involved is required, why is it not a problem here? 4) There is no evidence that Fr. Tromp, who died in 1975, ever published anything after the Council to correct the liberal theologians’ treatment of “subsist in.” If he were responsible for recommending the use of an equivocal term that cast into doubt a Catholic dogma, there is no evidence that he published any defense of the term or clarification of its use and intended meaning. Why not? 5) The claim of Pastor Schmidt is a real problem for the “hermeneutic of continuity” paradigm. This paradigm would like nothing better than to re-write history and attribute the term “subsist in” to a conservative theologian. The discovery from the “diaries” is very neat, very convenient. Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, a liturgical history is invented with new terminology out thin air that accommodates the “hermeneutic of continuity” paradigm. It’s a lie that everyone knows, and yet no one is suppose to talk about. The lie is easily confirmed from Cardinal Ratzinger’s own written record on liturgical questions. Should anyone be surprised that a “diary” should show up in an effort to try and whitewash this liberal corruption of Catholic dogma? There is only one person who knows the truth of the story and that is Pope Benedict. I do not expect anything from him. He has already demonstrated that the “hermeneutic of continuity” paradigm is more important than historical truth. Absent this I would like to see published the primary source documents are verified by the archivists at the University of Leuven’s Centre for the Study of the Second Vatican Council. This archival resource was founded in 1970 and, as far as I have been know, is the most complete archive of primary source documents of council participants. If the graduate student, Teuffenbach, has in fact discovered, after more than 40 years, here before unknown, important primary source documents of the secretary of the Doctrinal Commission, I find it odd that the discovery itself is not a front page story. Like the sisty-ugliers of Cinderella trying to get there fat foot into the glass slipper, all the shoving and pushing and pounding cannot force an orthodox meaning for “subsist in.” The Church of Christ is the (Roman) Catholic Church and no one, of whatever authority or dignity, can introduce an equivocal term to obfuscate this divinely revealed truth. Drew

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1902

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:00 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: First Fr Wiltgen, and now Professor dei Mattei in his "Concilio Vatican Secondo:Una Storia mai Scritta" have demonstrated at great length the manoeuvrings of the modernists. Even while the council was sitting, "Xavier Rynne" whose real name was Fr Murphy, wrote articles for the US press regaled his readers with the battles of his liberal heroes against the "reactionary Roman Curia" . But I don't think this requires us to read the concilar documents as the modernists themselves do. Believe it or not there is a modernist way of reading both Trent and Vatican In which they will say that a phrase like 'the evil doctrine of x" is condemned and then turn it around and say this only means that the "evil" part of the doctrine is condemned, not the alleged "good" part. Ambiguity is their stock and trade. Because so much of V2 is written in a narrative style rather than in the traditional clear propositional form, it is easy to draw from it ambiguous conclusions. But these texts can also be read in a very orthodox way. Afyer all, the most traditional of bishops, including Mons Lefebvre voted in favour of nearly all of them. Archbishop Lefebvre and many others only voted against two in their final form, Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. now there is very little which is strictly doctrinal in GS. Most of it is just commentary on the supposed goodness of the modern world, which I think even Fr Ocariz, judging from his recent article in OR, would agree isn't binding on anyone. I think traditionalists have to be careful in not falling into the trap of accepting the modernists' version as the truth. In the end any text must be read objectively in the light of what it actually says, not the intention of the people who wrote it. Personal intentions and motivations really don't mean much when it comes down to the contents of the text. What you say about the abuse of power and hijacking seems sadly only too true. It remains the duty of Catholics to maintain the Faith, even if those who ought to do so fail in their duty, for whatever reason. I have often wondered what would have happened if John XXIII had lived longer. He was known personally to love the liturgy. It's difficult to imagine him abolishing the Papal High Mass, or allowing any radical alteration of the TLM generally. Probably more vernacular permitted, and some simplification of the rubrics, but certainly no New Mass. Vatican hardly defended on its own merits any longer. Rather, Catholics are supposed to be blindly and irreversibly bound to the admittedly apparent contradictions of the council. It "is easy to draw from it ambiguous conclusions" because orthodox statements within the documents appear contradicted by other statements within the same documents. These apparent contradictory statements have been widely interpreted and embraced by Vatican II theologians as updates or displacements of previous magisterial teaching, as if that were possible. In other words, the most prominent theologians have used V2 as a means of promoting heresy. The highest ranking churchmen have widely and thoroughly implemented such heresy at institutions they control. Many orthodox Catholics cling to the hope of salvaging V2 by jettisoning the established heretical interpretations in favor of revisionist orthodox interpretations, but how can ambiguous texts laden with time-bombs unequivocally "be read in a very orthodox way?" Certainly Christ promised His Church would be protected from error. However, if particular teachings of individual popes or councils conflict with Perennial Magisterium or infallible doctrine, do not the conflicts prevent genuine acceptance by the Church? Why strain to revise interpretations of V2 ambiguities when heretical interpretations are already so thoroughly established? V2 itself is only supposed to be an interpretation of existing doctrine. The apparently heretical interpretations of V2 could themselves be reinterpreted. How many levels and revisions of V2 interpretation must we endure before finally laying an ax to the root of the problem?

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:26 pm    Post subject:

Columba, I agree with much that you say, but I still don't see why orthodox Catholics must accept the heretical readings of many of the V2 documents when there is an orthodox interpretation. Drew, I got the story from someone who knows Alessandra di Teuffenbach personally. I see no reason why she would falsify evidence. The fact that Tromp was silent on the point means nothing. It has not been the practice of Roman theologians to speak publicly on such matters.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:49 pm    Post subject:

PS Both stories may be true. Theologians do after all talk to each other. That Tromp proposed "susbsitit in" does not exclude the possibility that Ratzinger had spoken to him about it. Tromp may have thought that it could be read in an orthodox sense, whereas "adest" was obviously too ambiguous..There is nothing about "subsist it in" which is unorthodox per se. In Latin the meaning is "is fully in." One could scholastically speaking say that Our Lord's body, blood, soul and divinity subsist in the Blessed Sacrament. The problem arises with modern languages. This is why the most orthodox theologians at the Council had no problems with the text; but equally why the modernists were able to twist it.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:03 am    Post subject:

The entire project reeks of liberalism as has ever since 1517 when the founding anti-theological fornicator of liberalism, Martin Luther, got to work. He must have been very busy from 1962-1965 at the Luciferian Printing Company, fashioning award certificates and honorary doctorates to hand out to all the dupes who fell for his faux christianity and labored day and night to introduce it into Catholic life. Virtually speaking, some part of ANY protestant/liberal document can be "read" in an "orthodox" fashion by virtually anyone whose mind is so "open" that his brains dribble out. And that is why ecumenism is a sin. It destroys holy certainty within the intellect. Hell is filled with "nuanced" interpreters who could turn an exquisite phrase, parse with the best of 'em and, worst of all, befuddle the innocent. One of the best treatments of what words actually mean is contained in Romano Amerio's Iota Unum. There is no parsing or ambiguity there. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:48 am    Post subject:

Luther was a heretic, but he was no liberal, unless liberalism is defined as the rejection of Ecclesiastical authority, in which case all nonCatholics are by definition liberal. His principle of sola fide was absolute and he showed little tolerance to those who dissented from his views, and he was quite certain that the Roman Church was the Church of Antichrist. "Meaningful dialogue" wouldn't have meant much to him. Incidentally, magisterial documents have often been nuanced. That in itself is nothing new. Pius XII for example left open the question of Our Lady's death by defining that her Assumption took place "at the end of her earthly life." The more common view of theologians is that she did die, but one may hold the opposite opinion. Romano Amerio's work is very valuable, but I don't recall much in it about rejecting the Second Vatican Council in globo. He is especially critical of certain formulations, in GS in particular, but his approach is primarily that of a close study of the deformations in Catholic thought since the Council, with reference made to the later as needed.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:14 pm    Post subject: Partial Communion? Is it possible?

C.S. Gibson Quote: Thanks for your comments. That Tromp proposed "subsist in" comes from the papers in the Vatican archives. This is a recent discovery. I've heard the other story too; but I think the latest trumps that. (sorry for the pun) Charles, Its always a pleasure to discuss these issues with you. On the Trump question; I cannot see how the change would have come from him; however in view of the current state of the question, I’ll have to yield: “Contra factum non habentem argumentum” (I think that is how you say it). Charles states: Quote: Also, I think Domius Jesus which is an official document surpasses Ratzinger's comments. There is no conflict between D.I. and the “Ecclesiology” document; the doctrine contained in both of them is concordant. The contradiction between the two terms and their application by the pre- and post conciliar magisterium are palpable. Here is a quote from the two documents: Quote: Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium” : true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus : Quote: 17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.[Dominus Iesus] As you can see, both documents emanate from the same source, and both contain the same false statement that heretical sects are actually “true local Churches” and D.I. states that the “Church of Christ is present an operative also in these (false) Churches”. Chales states: Quote: As to the Eastern Churches, I'd be cautious in saying that Rome was merely acting out of curtesy. It was never the custom of the Church to allow curtesy to override fundamental principles. There is a real difference between the schismatic East and protestantism. Yes, of course, there have been individual converts, there still are. But the fact is that the Church has always treated the reception of an entire "church" corporately. Numerous Eastern bodies have gone in and out of communion with the Roman See over the centuries. Antioch being a case in point. When trying to assess the Catholic position one must also look at the practice of the Church. That the Eastern schismatics possess valid orders and bishops and have maintained a remnant of central authority, makes the process of corporate reunions possible; also the doctrinal differences between us an the Easterners are easier to bridge than those of the Western heretics. But in the end, neither the Easterners or Westerners are members of the Church, or are their sects true Churches. Charles states: Quote: I don't consider myself competent to judge the expression "partial communion". The fact that the most traditional bishops at the Council accepted it, including Archbishop Lefebvre, who by his own account only voted against Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, does cause me at any rate to pause before accusing them of error. I'd still take the opinion of Ottaviani or Siri over that of laymen or priests who today find error in texts which the former approved. It is entirely true that modernists have distorted the meaning of numerous texts to support their own errors, but until such time as competent authority says otherwise, I won't look for errors in what good scholastic thinkers endorsed. It’s a matter of record that +Lefebvre and the rest, only signed the documents, because they were assured that Paul VI was going to prevent the liberals from extracting or interpreting the “bad” parts of the documents in a manner to subvert Church doctrine and practice. It is also notorius that they were not at all happy with the terminology or the import of the documents. Cf. +Lefebvre’s book written during the council: “To Remain Catholics, Must we Become Protestants?”. Charles stated: Quote: I don't consider myself competent to judge the expression "partial communion". Charles, There was no “partial communion” of the Catholic Church with any other sect, before the Council (or ever, just in some people's minds). The term is used in the Council to indicate a union though imperfect of the Catholic Church, with false religions. Here is another document from Cardinal Raztinger that indicates how close is this (alleged) union: Quote: : From the document: “Some aspects of The Church Understood as Communion”:# 9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church. Therefore these false sects are: 1.”Part of the one Church of Christ” 2. Have a “special relationship of mutual interiority” (they are inside of one another) 3. “The one, holy, catholic (no caps)and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active” (in these false sects). In conclusion the Church is “essentially a mystery,” “a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual Church. Translation: We really can’t define what the Church is, or if we can, we can’t really grasp this truth. Second: the Church has a true existence (“ontologically”) and in time (“temporally”) prior to every individual Church. This is true, but how does this make these false sects “part of the one Church of Christ”? In contrast here is some pre-Vatican II magisterial declarations on the “partial communion” of the Catholic Church with other heretical and schismatic bodies: Quote: : 1. Pius IX, Jam Vos Omnes, 13 Sep 1868: "No non-Catholic sect or “all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create….Nor is it possible, either to say that these societies are either a member or a part of this same Church.” 2. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth “who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely ‘spiritual,’ as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link.” _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Columba



Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1902

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:29 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: I agree with much that you say, but I still don't see why orthodox Catholics must accept the heretical readings of many of the V2 documents when there is an orthodox interpretation. One need not accept the heretical readings to recognize the problem of ambiguous text. The controversial parts of V2 can only be read as orthodox to the extent they are ambiguous. Modernists are the proven masters of obfuscation so it was inevitable that they would prevail in an arena of ambiguity. They are like Brer Rabbit in the briar patch. Any orthodox reading of ambiguous V2 text of is necessarily subjective, but orthodoxy is traditionally defended by objective appeals to the unambiguous pronouncements of Tradition on revelation. CS Gibson wrote: Incidentally, magisterial documents have often been nuanced. That in itself is nothing new. Pius XII for example left open the question of Our Lady's death by defining that her Assumption took place "at the end of her earthly life." The more common view of theologians is that she did die, but one may hold the opposite opinion. Tradition is only nuanced on issues that are not necessarily settled. Previously settled issues described in unnuanced language were made to appear unsettled (if not revised) by the nuances of V2. There is one thing I am unsure about. Are statements that would otherwise be problematic made more acceptable, in any way, by their inclusion within the documents of V2? This is frequently implied by V2 defenders.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Partial Communion? Is it possible?

Michael Wilson wrote: C.S. Gibson Quote: Thanks for your comments. That Tromp proposed "subsist in" comes from the papers in the Vatican archives. This is a recent discovery. I've heard the other story too; but I think the latest trumps that. (sorry for the pun) Charles, Its always a pleasure to discuss these issues with you. On the Trump question; I cannot see how the change would have come from him; however in view of the current state of the question, I’ll have to yield: “Contra factum non habentem argumentum” (I think that is how you say it). Charles states: Quote: Also, I think Domius Jesus which is an official document surpasses Ratzinger's comments. There is no conflict between D.I. and the “Ecclesiology” document; the doctrine contained in both of them is concordant. The contradiction between the two terms and their application by the pre- and post conciliar magisterium are palpable. Here is a quote from the two documents: Quote: Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium” : true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus : Quote: 17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.[Dominus Iesus] As you can see, both documents emanate from the same source, and both contain the same false statement that heretical sects are actually “true local Churches” and D.I. states that the “Church of Christ is present an operative also in these (false) Churches”. Chales states: Quote: As to the Eastern Churches, I'd be cautious in saying that Rome was merely acting out of curtesy. It was never the custom of the Church to allow curtesy to override fundamental principles. There is a real difference between the schismatic East and protestantism. Yes, of course, there have been individual converts, there still are. But the fact is that the Church has always treated the reception of an entire "church" corporately. Numerous Eastern bodies have gone in and out of communion with the Roman See over the centuries. Antioch being a case in point. When trying to assess the Catholic position one must also look at the practice of the Church. That the Eastern schismatics possess valid orders and bishops and have maintained a remnant of central authority, makes the process of corporate reunions possible; also the doctrinal differences between us an the Easterners are easier to bridge than those of the Western heretics. But in the end, neither the Easterners or Westerners are members of the Church, or are their sects true Churches. Charles states: Quote: I don't consider myself competent to judge the expression "partial communion". The fact that the most traditional bishops at the Council accepted it, including Archbishop Lefebvre, who by his own account only voted against Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, does cause me at any rate to pause before accusing them of error. I'd still take the opinion of Ottaviani or Siri over that of laymen or priests who today find error in texts which the former approved. It is entirely true that modernists have distorted the meaning of numerous texts to support their own errors, but until such time as competent authority says otherwise, I won't look for errors in what good scholastic thinkers endorsed. It’s a matter of record that +Lefebvre and the rest, only signed the documents, because they were assured that Paul VI was going to prevent the liberals from extracting or interpreting the “bad” parts of the documents in a manner to subvert Church doctrine and practice. It is also notorius that they were not at all happy with the terminology or the import of the documents. Cf. +Lefebvre’s book written during the council: “To Remain Catholics, Must we Become Protestants?”. Charles stated: Quote: I don't consider myself competent to judge the expression "partial communion". Charles, There was no “partial communion” of the Catholic Church with any other sect, before the Council (or ever, just in some people's minds). The term is used in the Council to indicate a union though imperfect of the Catholic Church, with false religions. Here is another document from Cardinal Raztinger that indicates how close is this (alleged) union: Quote: : From the document: “Some aspects of The Church Understood as Communion”:# 9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church. Therefore these false sects are: 1.”Part of the one Church of Christ” 2. Have a “special relationship of mutual interiority” (they are inside of one another) 3. “The one, holy, catholic (no caps)and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active” (in these false sects). In conclusion the Church is “essentially a mystery,” “a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual Church. Translation: We really can’t define what the Church is, or if we can, we can’t really grasp this truth. Second: the Church has a true existence (“ontologically”) and in time (“temporally”) prior to every individual Church. This is true, but how does this make these false sects “part of the one Church of Christ”? In contrast here is some pre-Vatican II magisterial declarations on the “partial communion” of the Catholic Church with other heretical and schismatic bodies: Quote: : 1. Pius IX, Jam Vos Omnes, 13 Sep 1868: "No non-Catholic sect or “all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create….Nor is it possible, either to say that these societies are either a member or a part of this same Church.” 2. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth “who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely ‘spiritual,’ as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link.” Michael, I agree with you that the commentary which calls the Eastern Churches "part of the One Church of Christ" seems impossible to reconcile with traditional teaching. The term 'particular churches' is less problematic if it means simply that by possession of valid sacraments and apostolic succession they preserve essential elements of the Church. Of course, their sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, and in that case the Church can be said to act through them. the whole issue is fuzzy at best, and needs clarification. I still however, wouldn't refer to the Eastern Churches as sects. I don't think that has ever been Catholic usage.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:05 am    Post subject: Particular Churches?

Charles stated: Quote: Michael, I agree with you that the commentary which calls the Eastern Churches "part of the One Church of Christ" seems impossible to reconcile with traditional teaching. The term 'particular churches' is less problematic if it means simply that by possession of valid sacraments and apostolic succession they preserve essential elements of the Church. Of course, their sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, and in that case the Church can be said to act through them. the whole issue is fuzzy at best, and needs clarification. I still however, wouldn't refer to the Eastern Churches as sects. I don't think that has ever been Catholic usage. Charles, The term “particular churches” was defined in the same “Communion” document as the following: Quote: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES 7. The Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, is the universal Church, that is, the worldwide community of the disciples of the Lord(31), which is present and active amid the particular characteristics and the diversity of persons, groups, times and places. Among these manifold particular expressions of the saving presence of the one Church of Christ, there are to be found, from the times of the Apostles on, those entities which are in themselves Churches(32), because, although they are particular, the universal Church becomes present in them with all its essential elements(33). They are therefore constituted "after the model of the universal Church"(34), and each of them is "a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy"(35). …..9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76). According to the CDF “Communion” document the expression “particular Church” means that: 1. This group is “"a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy"(#7) 2. That these “particular Churches”, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) (With the Catholic Church. Because 3. In every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). Therefore the Eastern Orthodox Churches are “particular Churches” because they share in all of these characteristics (albeit imperfectly). If you don't like the term "sect", what term would you use to accurately describe these groups? There is only one Church; the Catholic Church (of course). But: "these societies are (n)either a member or a part of this same Church.” Pius IX himself uses the term: "No non-Catholic sect or “all of them together ...". If you use the term "church" loosely, you could apply it to the Eastern Schismatics; but are they really either "A Church" (a gathering of the faithful around their bishop)? Or a local portion of the Universal Church? The answer to both those questions is "no". You could also apply the term loosely also to the Lutherans and other non-Catholic religious groups: ei."The Lutheran Church in America"; it is an acceptable convention. You could also loosely refer to the "worlds religions", or the Muslim "religion"; but strictly speaking there is only one true religion in the world. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:38 am    Post subject:

Michael, If you read the document in its entirety you will see that in sections 13 & 14 it states that the Petrine Primacy is essential to the particular churches.It also reaffirms the immediate ordinary jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. In 17, 3, it refers to the Eastern Orthodox Churches as being wounded because of the lack of union with Rome. Though one can use the term "particular church" of Eastern Orthodox bodies, it is clear that it is not being used in the same way as it is to refer to particular churches which are in communion with Rome. The reason I don't use the term "sect" for the Eastern churches is that the Catholic Church has never done so.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:20 am    Post subject:
PS In a spirit of Total Disclosure, I must add that I took a look at Zubizarreta, my favorite of the manualists, and he does speak of the Ecclesia Graeca as divided into "partes" and "sectae" So there does appear to be a tradition among Roman theologians of speaking of the Easterners as sects, though I haven't found an official document which does so.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:39 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: PS In a spirit of Total Disclosure, I must add that I took a look at Zubizarreta, my favorite of the manualists, and he does speak of the Ecclesia Graeca as divided into "partes" and "sectae" So there does appear to be a tradition among Roman theologians of speaking of the Easterners as sects, though I haven't found an official document which does so. Yes, technically there is only one Church and one Religion; everything else is a man made organization. This is why I like discussing with you. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:04 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Michael, If you read the document in its entirety you will see that in sections 13 & 14 it states that the Petrine Primacy is essential to the particular churches.It also reaffirms the immediate ordinary jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. In 17, 3, it refers to the Eastern Orthodox Churches as being wounded because of the lack of union with Rome. Though one can use the term "particular church" of Eastern Orthodox bodies, it is clear that it is not being used in the same way as it is to refer to particular churches which are in communion with Rome. The reason I don't use the term "sect" for the Eastern churches is that the Catholic Church has never done so. Yes, some excellent parts to the document, that recall the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff; but in the end this appears to be only a defect in the schismatic churches and not a mortal wound, that totally severs them from union with Christ. Furthermore the term "sister Churches" is also applied to these churches by official documents, which also is applied to the local Catholic churches. Quote: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» 11. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches. Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured. Here the document puts the two separate entities on the same level; the note is to correct a "defect" of assuming there is more than one Church; but it reinforces the true conciliar defect of assuming that somehow, the Orthodox are part of the "one, holy catholic Church, confessed in the creed." If this doesn't convince you, I am going to hold my breath until I turn purple. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:23 pm    Post subject:

Michael, Please don't turn purple. I am not myself a particular fan of the 1990 document. It seems to muddy the waters about as much as it clarifies them, and I readily concede that it seems to be bending over backwards not to offend the Orthodox. The problem lies in the failure to properly define "Church". As far as I can see what the document is trying to do is suggest that there are particular ecclesial bodies floating around in space which lack unity with Rome and therefore are "wounded" without actually pointing out that the wound is one of schism. The Orthodox Church is something of an artificial construct itself. It didn't come into being all at once, but has come to mean a coalescing of all those various patriarchates and churches which over time broke with Rome at different dates and which sometime around the 16nth Century agreed that they all accepted the first 7 councils and thus are in communion with each other. All that said, however, I don't think it is unreasonable to draw a distinction between these bodies on the one hand and the protestant denominations on the other. At the Council of Florence for example the Orthodox bishops were allowed to take a full part in order to reach a healing of the schism. It didn't last, but it was attempted. And even now if agreement could be reached at the episcopal level the Orthodox churches would immediately return as full parts of the Catholic Church. This can't be said of any protestant body.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:18 pm    Post subject:
Turning Purple!!!!!! _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:44 pm    Post subject:

Well, please don't turn too purple. As I said the difficulty with the document is the ambiguity in the use of the word "church." I don't think, however that it is actually suggesting that the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches are one entity. The simple fact that there is no intercommunion between the Orthodox and Rome is a clear sign that for all the verbiage, no one can actually say that the Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject:

Ok, due to your impassionate pleas, I am breathing normally again!! Quote: I reply With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" Catechism of the Catholic Church (838) The above quotes are only two, of many I could furnish; which demonstrate that the both the "Communion" and "Sister Church" documents, are not just diplomatic words, but reflect a change in ecclesiology; and are part of a whole slew of documents begining with Vatican II that attempt to blur the distinction between the Catholic Church and these false "churches." The novel concept of "partial communion" is "so profund" that these "true particular churches'' lack little to be "fully" united to it. Also, on the inter-communion issue; yes, inter-communion is ordinarily prohibited, but the new code has loosened the restrictions so much, that this disclaimer is almost meaningless: Quote: The norms there indicated for the giving of the Eucharist to other Christians are summarized in canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law as follows: §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches. §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed. The new rules contrast starkly with the only code, which strictly forbade the participation in non-Catholic worship, or the giving of Sacraments to non-Catholics. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject:

Michael, you are doing a great thing here by bringing up the matter of ecclesiology. Since I no longer have access to the seminary library I frequented back in Western New York, I am at a loss to find articles by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton on that very topic. Were I to have such access, I would have been burning the midnight oil to do "pull quotes" from his learned Thomistic explanations of the matter, vis a vis, what he saw comng down the tracks prior to the Council.... none of which was good! Mons. Fenton did his dissertaion under Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange. One cannot have a better pedigree. And the Monsignor nailed the liberal heretics to the wall with his prescient warnings about their intentions to shift the tectonic plates upon which authentic Catholic understanding of ecclesiology rests. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:07 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: I got the story from someone who knows Alessandra di Teuffenbach personally. I see no reason why she would falsify evidence. The fact that Tromp was silent on the point means nothing. It has not been the practice of Roman theologians to speak publicly on such matters. PS Both stories may be true. Theologians do after all talk to each other. That Tromp proposed "subsitit in" does not exclude the possibility that Ratzinger had spoken to him about it. Tromp may have thought that it could be read in an orthodox sense, whereas "adest" was obviously too ambiguous. There is nothing about "subsist it in" which is unorthodox per se. In Latin the meaning is "is fully in." One could scholastically speaking say that Our Lord's body, blood, soul and divinity subsist in the Blessed Sacrament. The problem arises with modern languages. This is why the most orthodox theologians at the Council had no problems with the text; but equally why the modernists were able to twist it. C. S. Gibson: I did not intend to suggest that Teuffenbach “would falsify evidence.” I think others may have done it for her so that if an “error” is eventually discovered, those who have used her research as reference will have insulated themselves from criticism. As for Fr. Trope, if he was responsible for the grave sin of obfuscating Catholic dogma by replacing “is” with the term “subsist in” thinking that the term was orthodox, he most certainly bears a moral responsibility for not confronting the consensus of liberal theologians, including Fr. Ratzinger, who published, what he would have considered, heretical understandings of the term. Everyone has an absolute obligation to defend the Faith and that obligation is most grave for those who are in any way responsible for the scandal of injuring it. If “theologians do after all talk to each other” when there is no moral or doctrinal imperative to do so, why should you conclude that, “It has not been the practice of Roman theologians to speak publicly on such matters” when the moral and doctrinal imperatives are staring them in the face? Without any corroborating evidence from the official commission minutes, or from the personal journal of the Msgr. Philips, the Doctrinal Commission vice-secretary who chaired the debate, or from any other of the principles involved in the question, why should anyone accept the word of a theological student that she has discovered a primary source document more than 40 years after the fact without any independent verification from experts? Let her submit the documents to the archivists at Leuven for their verification and inclusion in their library. Even if the discovery is legitimate and the document is genuine, there is still a lot of explaining to do. But more importantly, I disagree with the assertion that “subsist in” can be understood in an orthodox sense. I think that “subsist in” does “exclude the possibility” of an “orthodox sense,” it is “unorthodox per se,” and the word, “adest” is “ambiguous” for the same reason. This can ultimately be proven by the CDF attempt to defend this doctrinal corruption. The example provided can help demonstrate why. By saying “that Our Lord's body, blood, soul and divinity subsists in the Blessed Sacrament,” you are professing the Lutheran doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament. “Subsist in” presupposes two substantial realities (N.B.: I have excluded the possibility of accidents or the use of metaphorical terminology). The Lutheran doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament, referred to as “consubstantiation,” holds that both the body and blood of Christ are substantially present and the bread and wine are substantially present to the communicant. The word “adest,” meaning “is in,” also presuppose two substantial realities. For A to “subsist in” B, or A to “be in” B, requires two distinct substantial realities in both cases. The copula “is” cannot relate two distinct substantial realities (N.B.: Again, I have excluded the use of metaphorical terminology) except in the case where one substantial reality is only an image, sign or symbol of the other. For Catholics, “Our Lord’s body, blood, soul and divinity” is “the Blessed Sacrament.” Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis wrote: “That the mystical body of Christ and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome are one and the same thing, is a doctrine based on revealed truth.” Pius XII, Humani Generis Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam wrote: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, a doctrine revealed originally from the lips of the Redeemer Himself… “Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam Firstly, and most importantly, these are examples of the authentic magisterium engaging the Magisterium of the Church in the ordinary and universal mode of expression to definitively and infallibly declare Catholic dogma. The supposition is that the two terms, “Mystical Body of Christ” and the “Catholic Church in communion with Rome”, represent one and the same substantial realitiy. The use of “subsist in” necessitates two substantial realities and the entire science of the new ecclesiology is concerned about the relationship between these realities. Ecumenism, Religious Liberty and the Relations with non-Christian religions all stand upon the new ecclesiology. The CDF attempt to give this corruption of truth an orthodox sense helps expose the problem. The proposition, A is B, when expressing identity is convertible, that is equivalent to saying B is A. When the CDF uses the copula “is,” the identity is drawn between the “Church of Christ” and the “Catholic Church.” When the CDF includes terms that have any reference to Rome, or communion with Rome, or governed by Rome, etc. the copula “subsist in” is used. Identity is only possible with the copula “is” and the copula, “subsist in” will always require two substantial realities (again, excluding accidents and properties). The proposition, “The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church” is not necessarily a statement of identity. It depends on the meaning of “catholic.” As written, it is not convertible because it in fact offers only the genus, Catholic, omitting the species, Roman. It was Cardinal Congar to whom we are indebted for explaining that the obfuscation was intended. If a Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, etc. reads the proposition with their understanding of “catholic” as expressed in the Nicene Creed, it expresses identity. The same is true for a Catholic if they supply a Roman Catholic understanding of the term. No one, of whatever rank or ecclesiastical dignity, has the authority to obfuscate a divinely revealed truth. There is only one correction to the problem possible: sincere repentance and reparation for this sin. In the defense of Catholic truth no compromise is possible with any equivocation. Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:44 pm    Post subject:
Drew, Could you back up your assertion that the verb subsistere requires two ,or more I suppose,substantial subjects?

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:52 pm    Post subject:
The Council of Florence defined that the Holy Ghost has "His subsistent being from both the Father and the Son" are we to conclude from this that the Council left open the possibility that He could have it from something else too?

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject:

Michael, To return again to the Council of Florence: It did say with regard to the healing of the schism " The wall which was dividing the eastern and the western church has been removed from our midst." The Latin "paries qui occidentalem orientalemque dividebat ecclesiam." This certainly doesn't suggest that the 'ecclesia orientalis" was just a group of sects. On the other hand, I don't see the words of Paul VI as saying that there is no division. one may say that it would take very little to restore unity, but it still takes that "very little". The jesuits in the 17nth Century often preached in Orthodox churches, and gave the sacraments to the Orthodox. It is also true that the Holy Office in no way supported this practice, but neither did the Popes stop it, and it is hard t believe that they were unaware of it.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:24 pm    Post subject:

By the way, for those still interested in the initial point of the thread, Ludwig Ott writing in the 1950's uses the term "assensus religiosus" as that which is to be given to the "ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching". I can't see this as differing materially from the "obsequiem religiosum" mentioned in Lumen Gentium,, nor can I see that the "ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching" differs from the "authentic magisterium" of the Roman Pontiff. Of corse, unlike Ocariz, Ott adds that this does not preclude that a competent expert after due research on all grounds, could dissent from it if he reaches the positive conviction that what is being said is founded on an error.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:04 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Drew, Could you back up your assertion that the verb subsistere requires two ,or more I suppose, substantial subjects? The Council of Florence defined that the Holy Ghost has "His subsistent being from both the Father and the Son" are we to conclude from this that the Council left open the possibility that He could have it from something else too? CS Gibson: The term used in Lumen Gentium is “subsists in.” You might begin by asking yourself, “Subsists in what?” “In,” being a preposition, requires an object. “Subsist in,” does not require two “substantial subjects,” for example, it could be an accident that “subsists in” a substance, but the case in question concerns “substantial subjects,” therefore, I have noted the restriction. As I previously said: Drew wrote: “The copula “is” cannot relate two distinct substantial realities (N.B.: Again, I have excluded the use of metaphorical terminology) except in the case where one substantial reality is only an image, sign or symbol of the other.” The Catholic Church holds as an object of divine Faith that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church. The two terms refer to one substantial reality. Your example from the Council of Florence is worse than your example of the Blessed Sacrament. In your present example, the term, “subsistent” is an adjective, not a verb. There is no question of an object, predicate nominative, or predicate adjective. Even the verb, “subsist,” is intransitive. To say, as Lumen Gentium did, “subsist in,” introduces an adverbial prepositional phrase answering the question, “where.” Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:36 pm    Post subject:
Drew, I must say that I do not find your argumentation persuasive. Could you cite a scholastic theologian on this point? Ottaviani. Siri, and others one could name were good scholastic thinkers, as far as I know they did not have difficulties with " subsistit in." As Archbishop Lefebvre also voted for Lumen Gentium, it is safe to think he also didn't see what you seem to think is so obvious.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:11 pm    Post subject:

PS. With regard to Fr Trump's intervention, according to Fr Becker SJ, the evidence is a tape recording of Trump speaking at a meeting of a plenary session of the doctrinal commission of the Council. This recording is in the Vatican archives. According to this Trump said "Possumus dicere itaque: "subsistit in ecclesia Catholica,..". Trump here was using subsistere to mean "is perpetuated in" which is what the verb means when governing a preposition. I readily admit I was being a bit flippant with regard to my citation of the Council of Florence. My point being that I prefer the views of those trained in the classical theological tradition of the Church to those however well intentioned who have had no contact with the traditional theological schools. Personally, I do not consider myself competent to sit in judgement over them. Though, of course, I am aware that at least some of the followers of the late Fr Feeney feel differently. After all, those who hold in contempt the Holy Office under Pius XII, are hardly going to be impressed by anything subsequently.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:14 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Michael, To return again to the Council of Florence: It did say with regard to the healing of the schism " The wall which was dividing the eastern and the western church has been removed from our midst." The Latin "paries qui occidentalem orientalemque dividebat ecclesiam." This certainly doesn't suggest that the 'ecclesia orientalis" was just a group of sects. On the other hand, I don't see the words of Paul VI as saying that there is no division. one may say that it would take very little to restore unity, but it still takes that "very little". The jesuits in the 17nth Century often preached in Orthodox churches, and gave the sacraments to the Orthodox. It is also true that the Holy Office in no way supported this practice, but neither did the Popes stop it, and it is hard t believe that they were unaware of it. As regards Florence: The wall separating the Greeks from the Church, did come down temporarily. This statement was written after the Greeks signed the treaty of union. The fact that there was a "wall" indicated that they were not part of the Church. If they are "not a group of sects" what are they then? I would like to hear your explanation. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:25 pm    Post subject:

Charles stated: Quote: The jesuits in the 17nth Century often preached in Orthodox churches, and gave the sacraments to the Orthodox. It is also true that the Holy Office in no way supported this practice, but neither did the Popes stop it, and it is hard t believe that they were unaware of it. Interesting statement; the Holy Office, of which the Pope was the head of it, had always prohibited "Communicatio in Sacris" and yet you state that the Jesuits were permitted to practice it? I read an article in "The Latin Mass Magazine" written by "Craig Allan" (alias) which summarized the position of the Holy Office as follows: Quote: During the period of 1622 to 1939, questions regarding worship with non-Catholics were addressed to the Holy Office. The response of the Holy Office to the questions throughout the nearly three centuries which constitute this period is without exception consistent, giving one a grasp of the mens ecclesiae ("the mind of the Church"). The Holy Office therefore observed that the Council of Carthage forbade praying and singing with heretics and that participation in schismatic and heretic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and divine law...[about which] no one has the power to dispense...[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses." Also, the term employed by the Holy Office of the Greeks is "Schismatics" and also "Heretics and Schismatics" _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Page 3

Go to Page 1, 2

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:32 pm    Post subject:

Charles stated: Quote: On the other hand, I don't see the words of Paul VI as saying that there is no division. one may say that it would take very little to restore unity, but it still takes that "very little". Charles, Both the Paul VI and the CCC, state that there is a "profund communion" between these sects and the Catholic Church: Quote: With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" Catechism of the Catholic Church (838) There is no "profund communion" between the Catholic Church and any other religious body; there is not even a "shallow communion" or even any communion at all; its an "all or nothing" deal. These bodies are totally cut off from the Church, like dead branches from a living tree. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject:

Michael, The historical evidence that the Jesuits did it is factual, some other groups did too, I think Franciscans as well. Perhaps they were acting in disobedience, but they were not censured for it. As to Florence, the Eastern bishops were invited to take part in the Council. When agreement was reached, the wall came down. I cannot imagine a group of sects being allowed to take part in a Council, nor can I see them being referred to as a "church" the moment reconciliation was reached. As to "profound communion", I am the first to agree with you that fuzzy terminology is the habit these days. I am not defending it. But I don't think this can be viewed as a true change in ecclesiology. For my part I have no opinion on what the Eastern Churches are, apart from saying that they are schism from Rome, and to a greater or lesser degree depending upon individuals and countries, hold heretical beliefs. My point ihas only been to suggest that Rome has in practice treated them differently from Protestantism.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:09 pm    Post subject:

Drew stated: Quote: There is a direct thread from the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaching of "salvation by implicit desire", to Lumen Gentium that authoritatively references the 1949 Letter, to the Prayer Meeting of Assisi. Like many references used by the conciliar church, the 1949 letter has nothing to do with the interreligius meeting at Assisi; the letter has to do with the possibility of individuals to attain the state of grace, and salvation, without the Sacraments; the latter (Assisi) has to do with the salvific nature of false religions as J.P. II explained it. The fact that "salvation by implicit desire" is taught not only by the 1949 Letter (approved by Pius XII personally), but is also the undisputed teaching of the Church since at least St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is the relevant quote: Quote: Objection 2. Further, one does not need to receive what one has already acquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and virtues: thus we read (Acts 10:1-2): "There was a certain man in Cesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called Italian band, a religious man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, was afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by Baptism. Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ andtheir desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." God can bestow the Sacramental effect without the Sacrament; for example in the miraculous sanctification of Cornelius, as well as in the case of a perfect act of contrition, as well as a spiritual Communion. Even the first rational act of every human being, is either towards God and the state of Grace or away from God and the state of Mortal Sin; Summa I-II A-6: Quote: I answer that, It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. Therefore remission of original sin is possible, without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, and therefore so is salvation, for those who were to die in this state; which is what Fr. Feeney denied. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:02 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Drew, I must say that I do not find your argumentation persuasive. Could you cite a scholastic theologian on this point? Ottaviani. Siri, and others one could name were good scholastic thinkers, as far as I know they did not have difficulties with " subsistit in." As Archbishop Lefebvre also voted for Lumen Gentium, it is safe to think he also didn't see what you seem to think is so obvious. PS. With regard to Fr Trump's intervention, according to Fr Becker SJ, the evidence is a tape recording of Trump speaking at a meeting of a plenary session of the doctrinal commission of the Council. This recording is in the Vatican archives. According to this Trump said "Possumus dicere itaque: "subsistit in ecclesia Catholica,..". Trump here was using subsistere to mean "is perpetuated in" which is what the verb means when governing a preposition. I readily admit I was being a bit flippant with regard to my citation of the Council of Florence. My point being that I prefer the views of those trained in the classical theological tradition of the Church to those however well intentioned who have had no contact with the traditional theological schools. Personally, I do not consider myself competent to sit in judgement over them. Though, of course, I am aware that at least some of the followers of the late Fr Feeney feel differently. After all, those who hold in contempt the Holy Office under Pius XII, are hardly going to be impressed by anything subsequently Nietzsche, who called himself, “The philosopher with a hammer,” Said, “If you want to get rid of God, You must first get rid of grammar.” The reason you do not find the arguments “persuasive” is because you do not know grammar. It is demonstrated once again in your last reply when you said, “Trump here was using subsistere to mean ‘is perpetuated in’ which is what the verb means when governing a preposition.” A “verb” does not “govern a preposition.” The preposition functions to introduce the phrase, in this case, an adverbial phrase. The adverbial phrase, like any adverb qualifies the verb. It will answer such questions as how, when, where, how frequent, or to what degree. The preposition always requires an object, either stated or implied. In the matter at hand the phrase answers the question “where.” It tells you where the “Church of Christ,” a substantial reality, subsists. That place is the “Catholic Church,” which is also a substantial reality. IF you think the question is the grammatical equivalent to saying, “I subsist in me.” Then plainly say so and then we can drag the analogy about to better understand its stupidity. It was Dr. Kreeft discussing moral questions opined that Nietzsche, an atheist, was the first deconstructionist. Neitzsche recognized that grammar was the key to destroying God. Kreeft said that Neitzsche realized that in, “Grammar is the traces of God and creation and form and objective truth and order in language.” Deconstructionism denies the intentionality of language and leads to the denial of all truth. It is also an important element of Modernism the ultimate purpose of which is to deconstruct dogma. There are two errors of Modernism that have infected traditional Catholics that unless corrected will make any defense of the faith impossible. The first regards the nature of dogma. The error is the refusal to regard dogma, as formulated by the Magisterium of the Church, as the definitive formal object of divine and Catholic Faith. It considers dogma as the proper field for theological speculation and regards the theological speculation to have greater authority than the dogma. Failing to undermine the divine truth of dogma, it then attempts to regulate dogma to the level of preceptive norms of action, and not norms of believing. The current discussion of corrupting Catholic dogma by changing “one word, as with a drop of poison,” is example of this. And you are an example of someone who can have no part in defending the Faith. Pope Leo XIII wrote: The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitium The second error regards the nature of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions which are treated as matters of simple Church discipline. It errs in understanding that the ecclesiastical traditions, those acts of the virtue of Religion and the gift of Piety that make the Faith visible, and is the means by which it is publicly expressed and communicated, are not accidents of the Faith but necessary properties. Unfortunately, even Archbishop Lefebvre was guilty of these failings. But in the Archbishop’s defense, he became a much stronger defender of the Faith as he grew older. He would not have signed Lumen Gentium at the end of his life and that is evident in his own writings. Archbishop Lefebvre, a “scholastic theologian,” in his later years expressed regrets for being too “naïve” during the Council and in his later letters to Cardinal Ratzinger as head of CDF made direct accusations of heresy in the Council documents. He said: Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: “Considering that the ‘Declaration of Religious Liberty’ is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, we ask for a wholesale revision of the text. We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of documents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecumenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion. Similarly on several points of prime importance, the new Code of Canon Law is unacceptable by it opposition to the definitive Magisterium of the Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger of April 17, 1985). In his Open Letter to Confused Catholics regarding why he rejected the term “subsists in” he said: Quote: “We also read that the Church of God “subsists in” the Catholic Church--a suspicious formula, because immemorial doctrine has always said that the Church of God is the Catholic Church. If we accept this recent formula, it would seem that Protestant and Orthodox communions form equal parts of the Church--which cannot be, since they have separated themselves from the one Church founded by Jesus Christ: Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam.” The newly minted Cardinal Becker’s claim will only convince those who are already convinced. Every “plenary session of the doctrinal commission” has official minutes. Where are the documents that corroborate this story? The graduate student, Alexandra von Teuffenbach, says they do not exist. Where is the personal corroboration from journal of Msgr. Philips who chaired the debate on this question? Where is any publication by Fr. Tromp that would support this claim? Yet you believe this self serving discovery of an unverified “tape recording” forty years after the fact. A convenient, most timely “recording” that just happens to support the theological contentions of the “hermeneutic of continuity” that have already been entangled in lies. This kind of “research” offered as the ground for a doctoral thesis would not get a hearing in a second rate secular institution. As to your “personal” remarks, I have no direct association with any group founded by Fr. Feeney. But again I remind you that Fr. Feeny was never excommunicated for heresy and no doctrinal opinion of his was retracted upon his regularization with the Church. It is a fact that every group he established is currently in full communion with the Catholic Church and their local ordinaries. They, without exception, continue to teach, publish and defend the theological opinions of Fr. Feeney. In the discussion, Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI, http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=395818&highlight=#395818, the last I heard, you were on your way to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi with a potted plant. In that discussion you held that no article of faith was necessary for salvation because “invincible ignorance” saves, the “invincibly ignorant” apparently “subsisting in” the Church of Christ. You also were unconcerned about what you called a “supposed” mistranslation in Mystici Corporis that was thoroughly documented. But, after all, what are words to someone who thinks grammar only gets in the way of theological agendas? As long as truth is not what you are looking for you will never find it. As for you blindness in understanding the relationship between the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the Prayer Meeting at Assisi, I will only say that it would be invisible to anyone who has so little regard for the authority of dogma. This thread, The 1989 Profession of Faith, Lumen Gentium and the Authentic Magisterium, was posted before the SSPX meeting in Albano. How do suppose that I knew that the Doctrinal Preamble concerned the 1989 Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity? Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:56 pm    Post subject:

Drew, First how reassuring to know that Fr Feeney and every group he founded reconciled with the Church of Vatican II. The very Church you accuse of error. Given your own theological position it is understandable that you would suspect everyone in Rome to be conspirators. I myself have no reason to believe that Fr Becker is lying. As long ago as 2005, if memory serves, he wrote on the question of "subsistit in." Naturally I would not presume to think that an elderly German Jesuit and academic could possibly have the same knowledge of Latin grammar and scholastic thinking as you possess Drew, but allow me to be sentimental and give some credit to a priest trained for 12 years when Latin was still used as a spoken language and who knew Fr Tromp. I am aware of Mons Lefebvre's late change of position, but that was only after modernists had used Lumen Gentium to justify their own position. Neither Lefebvre, nor any of the other traditionalists complained about it at the time, which is something I consider odd if the error is so obvious.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:02 pm    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Drew, First how reassuring to know that Fr Feeney and every group he founded reconciled with the Church of Vatican II. The very Church you accuse of error. Given your own theological position it is understandable that you would suspect everyone in Rome to be conspirators. I myself have no reason to believe that Fr Becker is lying. As long ago as 2005, if memory serves, he wrote on the question of "subsistit in." Naturally I would not presume to think that an elderly German Jesuit and academic could possibly have the same knowledge of Latin grammar and scholastic thinking as you possess Drew, but allow me to be sentimental and give some credit to a priest trained for 12 years when Latin was still used as a spoken language and who knew Fr Tromp. I am aware of Mons Lefebvre's late change of position, but that was only after modernists had used Lumen Gentium to justify their own position. Neither Lefebvre, nor any of the other traditionalists complained about it at the time, which is something I consider odd if the error is so obvious. “Reassuring”? What is you point? Are you claiming that Fr. Feeney is a heretic and the Church has erred in failing over the last 60 years to recognize it permitting his followers to establish religious communities and publish his doctrinal teachings? Are you claiming that there is some intellectual dishonesty pointing that the Church has made no doctrinal judgment regarding Fr. Feeney, and yet, the "authentic magisterium" has erred in other matters? I have not said anything one way or another regarding the theological positions of Fr. Feeney beyond discussing the errors in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that address his defense of the Catholic dogma that there “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” I have made no comments regarding any of Fr. Feeney’s teaching on any other question. So what is your point? You obviously disagree with Fr. Feeny’s position that there is “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” You made that clear in the previous thread when you defended the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches “salvation by implicit desire.” A teaching that Fr. Fenton admits is novel teaching based upon a mistranslation from the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis. That document denies the defined Catholic dogmas that explicit Faith, the sacraments and subjection to the Roman pontiff are necessary, as a necessity of means, for salvation, substituting in its place the a “desire to be conformed to the will of a god who rewards and punishes.” That, as I have said many times, is something that can be predicated about nearly anyone, even you. That puts you in the category of Catholics that regard dogma as window dressing; perhaps a nice Credo at a Missa Cantata but nothing anyone seriously believes. And since a heretic is defined as a baptized Catholic who denies a defined dogma, how can you complain about the beliefs regarding anything by anyone without exposing yourself as an arrogant hypocrite? Of course Cardinal Becker published his findings in 2005. It was in 2004 that his graduate student provided him with her thesis. So what is the point? As I said in my previous post an unverifiable “tape recording” discovered 40 years after the fact as the sole basis for a doctoral thesis would not stand in a second rate secular college in this country. If anything, it should prove a matter of concern that after nearly eight years not a shred of corroborating evidence has been published to support this “tape recording.” As to your appeal to “authority” as the sole ground of your argument, what on earth are you doing posting on SSPX site? The SSPX is functioning outside of established ecclesiastical authority. Go to your local ordinary and do whatever he tells you. Go to the Indult. Join the Reform of the Reform. You have no place in Traditional Catholicism. A traditional Catholic recognizes that authority to which obedience is due under the virtue of Justice is governed proximately by the virtue of Religion. No authority has any jurisdiction to harm the Faith in either its articulation or practice. If you think obedience to authority alone will excuse supine behavior, I am telling it will not. It may mitigate the punishment to be endured but you will not escape it. The Church of Christ IS the Roman Catholic Church. I rejoice that Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that fact and humbly acknowledged his failure to see all the errors of the Council at the time. The same thing cannot be said for Cardinal Becker or Fr. Trope despite all their education. Drew

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject:

Drew, I'm sorry if I have upset you so much, but it was you who said that Fr Feeney and his successors are reconciled to their local ordinaries. As to the 1949 letter, yes I assent to it, so does the SSPX as far as I know, and I must say I would be surprised to learn that Fr Fenton didn't. I have his book on the whole question, and he certainly seems to accept it. I wouldn't say that someone is a heretic for rejecting it, but it does seem temerarious to do so. I have pointed out before that the letter merely gives a teaching which was the common view of theologians at the time, and I find it difficult to believe that a letter of the Holy Office, of which Pius XII was prefect, contains error. As for the rest, I suspect that if someone wishes to consult the Roman archives they will find the tape recording. I don't think it is a secret, and most definitely a secular university will accept that as a genuine source provided it is documented. Why don't you write to Cardinal Becker and ask him? In my experience serious academics and professors are more than happy to cooperate if asked. Furthermore even the most modernist of old fashioned Jesuits tend to be very willing to cite sources and to share them. Alternatively, if you absolutely don't trust Becker, then contact the SSPX theologians who have spoken to him. He has been oe of the Roman theologians engaged in the conversations with them. I'm sure they would be willing to give you their impression of him. As to "authority", I am not aware that I have ever used that as the sole criterion of a theological opinion, but I do believe that the episcopate in union with the Roman Pontiff is unlikely to err in a dogmatic constitution such as LG. The documents of Vatican II cannot all be put on the same plane as their objects varied. Thus a purely pastoral decree such as Gaudium et Spes has limited dogmatic content. The same can be said for Dignitatis Humanae. Councils are only infallible in dogmatic definitions, and yes, I would say that even Lumen Gentium, because it contains no dogmatic definitions could theoretically, contain error. The same could be said of any Papal encyclical of the last two hundred years. But, that said, because of the high supernatural authority of the Holy See, an assensus religiousus is required unless one can establish after very serious research that an error is contained therein. Now, the simple fact that the most orthodox Fathers at Vatican II accepted LG is a strong testimony in its favour. The onus probandi rests upon those who would say otherwise. I am not privy to the discussions between Rome and the SSPX, so I do not know whether or not the SSPX has specifically raised the question of the "subsistit in", and I cannot make any comment about it otherwise than to cite Fr Becker's opinion at this time.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Michael, The historical evidence that the Jesuits did it is factual, some other groups did too, I think Franciscans as well. Perhaps they were acting in disobedience, but they were not censured for it. As to Florence, the Eastern bishops were invited to take part in the Council. When agreement was reached, the wall came down. I cannot imagine a group of sects being allowed to take part in a Council, nor can I see them being referred to as a "church" the moment reconciliation was reached. As to "profound communion", I am the first to agree with you that fuzzy terminology is the habit these days. I am not defending it. But I don't think this can be viewed as a true change in ecclesiology. For my part I have no opinion on what the Eastern Churches are, apart from saying that they are schism from Rome, and to a greater or lesser degree depending upon individuals and countries, hold heretical beliefs. My point ihas only been to suggest that Rome has in practice treated them differently from Protestantism. Charles, In reference to the Jesuits and Franciscans; I now remember a conversation I had with "Big Bad Trad" recently, and he did mention that there was a case where the Holy Office early in the last Century, did permit a group of schismatics to be given the Sacraments; the circumstances appeared to be, that they had professed the Catholic faith privately to the priest, but they could not do so publicly for some reason (fear of persecution or something). However if this were the case, these people would not be non-Catholics but Catholics. As you know, a non-Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments fruitfully, because his lack of faith is an impediment to the Sacramental graces. It is not sufficient to "have the same faith as the Church in a Sacrament", as the new code specifies. The cases you mention, must have been similar, otherwise you would have the priests committing sacrileges continually. As to Florence, It is true that the Eastern Schismatics were invited to the Council, but one of the specific reasons the council was called, was to arrange under its auspices a formal debate between the Catholics and the Schismatics, with the hope of reaching a doctrinal accord on the question of the "Filioque" and by this means, to restore the Easterners to Communion. It was not a matter of letting these representatives participate in the discussions of the committees drafting the schema as was done at Vatican II. On the Easterners: If they are in Schism (as we both agree), then they cannot be in communion with Rome. Therefore to state that there exists: "this (non-existent) communion (that) is so profound" between the Catholic Church and these non-Catholic "whatchamacallits"; is to teach that there does exist a communion between the Catholic Church and these bodies; and this is a novel doctrine, and not in accord with the traditional Catholic Ecclesiology. I believe this is an inescapable conclusion, at least I cannot see any way around it. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:28 pm    Post subject:

Michael is correct. In the sound manuals of theology, one after another, I have never seen any exception to the rule that one either wholly accepts the unique, divinely-ordered Church and ALL her dogmas or one is no Catholic at all, and therefore outside the communion essential to salvation. Naturally, invincible ignorance may excuse, even though rare, and as an earlier pope once indicated, it is nothing in which a Catholic may place any great hope. This seemingly "harsh" position is nothing more than the exercise of reason: There most certainly are instances wherein an individual has never once been exposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church and has throughout his life only known what his heretical and/or schismatic family and neighbors have believed and practiced. Nevertheless, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicates, God would not refuse to give such a man the necessary light to learn of and to accept the essential truths required of him for his personal salvation. ( We see this all the time in the testimony of former Prots and Orothodox who, through their own power of reason - perhaps enlightened by actual grace - began to question the completeness, the sufficiency, the correctness of what they had been taught to believe in their own sect and, through inquiry, study and prayer, came to believe in the Catholic Church. ) Ultimately, as sin, says the Common Doctor, is in the will, God will reward with the one, true faith those who seek Him and who will willingly renounce their own errors which once separated them from Him and His Church. How many or few that number is is known only to God. And, very sadly, with the advance of liberalism, modernism, etc., even within the social structure of the Catholic Church Herself, the rule applies as much to baptised Catholics as to those born and raised outside the Church. On this, the particular judgment of a Catholic, I would surmise, will be much more exacting in this matter than that of some sweet little old Baptist lady who did her best and spent her entire life only hearing bigotry preached by folks to whom she was related or for whom she had a natural affinity as neighbors. The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena brings up this very point inasmuch as God the Father tells St. Catherine that He will not refuse anyone who, even at the point of death, seeks to know and accept the teachings of His First Truth, Our Lord, His only-begotten Son and willingly renounces sin. And yet, He admits that pride, despair and attachment prevent many from saving themselves even in their final moment. Great are these mysteries and their profundity. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:04 pm    Post subject:

Thanks Pat, Also, I agree with your posting. Charles stated: Quote: I'm sorry if I have upset you so much, but it was you who said that Fr Feeney and his successors are reconciled to their local ordinaries. As to the 1949 letter, yes I assent to it, so does the SSPX as far as I know, and I must say I would be surprised to learn that Fr Fenton didn't. I have his book on the whole question, and he certainly seems to accept it. I wouldn't say that someone is a heretic for rejecting it, but it does seem temerarious to do so. I have pointed out before that the letter merely gives a teaching which was the common view of theologians at the time, and I find it difficult to believe that a letter of the Holy Office, of which Pius XII was prefect, contains error. Correct, I might add on Fr. Feeney's "reconciliation"; like many of the post Vatican II practices, altered what was required by the Church before the Council: heretics do not seem to have to make a "renunciation of their errors" as they did previous to the Council. An example comes to mind of a Sri Lankan theologian, who denied many Catholic teachings; he was excommunicated finally by Rome. His "reconciliation" consisted in having to sign the "Credo of the People of God" of Paul VI. There was no retraction of errors and no admiting of wrong doing. The Feeneyites still deny Baptism of desire and of Blood. And Fr. Feeney also taught that a person in the state of grace could not save their soul, if they died without becoming an actual member of the Church Here is a partial quote from an article written by Fr. Martin Stephanich O.F.M. STD in the Remnant, regarding Fr. Fenton's views re. Fr. Feeney: Quote: By the early 1970s, Father Feeney had been at it many years already, preaching his false Salvation doctrine. It had been some time in the late 1940s, after I had been working for my doctoral degree in sacred theology (S. T. D.), and when some of today’s uneducated high-profile Feeneyites were not yet born, that Father Feeney first began to ventilate his false Salvation Doctrine, thus creating a storm of controversy. When two of my well-known Catholic University (Washington, D.C.) professors, Father Francis Connell, CSSR, and Father (later Monsignor) Joseph Fenton, were among those who publicly refuted Father Feeney’s errors. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:03 pm    Post subject:

Michael, I suspect what explains the practice at different times of admitting the Orthodox to communion etc, was based on the question of whether or not they were really in schism properly understood. Excommunications tended to be individual, and a position taken by the Patriarch of Constantinople did not necessarily reflect the views of Greek islanders who may not even have been aware of it. I am not suggesting that the Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church, merely that they contain elements proper to the Catholic Church. A severed limb contains elements proper to the human body, though it is severed from it.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:02 pm    Post subject: Union with the Greek Orthodox

Charles stated: Quote: am not suggesting that the Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church, merely that they contain elements proper to the Catholic Church. A severed limb contains elements proper to the human body, though it is severed from it. Charles, this discussion is not about what your opinion is (you are obviously orthodox) , its about the teaching of Vatican II and fwd, on whether or not we have a "profound communion with the orthodox churches" Quote: With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profoundthat it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" Catechism of the Catholic Church (838) And whether it is compatible with the Pre-Vatican II teaching (no communion between the Church and any other religious body): Quote: 1. Pius IX, Jam Vos Omnes, 13 Sep 1868: "No non-Catholic sect or “all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create….Nor is it possible, either to say that these societies are either a member or a part of this same Church.” 2. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth “who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely ‘spiritual,’ as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link.” I believe and hold that the contradiction could not be greater; therefore I have stated that before Vatican II, the uniform teaching of the Church was that there was no "communion" between the Catholic Church and any other religious body; and that: Vatican II fwd stated that there is a "profound communion" between the Catholic Church and the "Orthodox." I cannot see how this does not follow: 1. The two statements are contradictory 2. The second statement represents a modification or change in the Ecclessiology of the Church. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:47 pm    Post subject:

Michael Wilson wrote: Drew stated: Quote: There is a direct thread from the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaching of "salvation by implicit desire", to Lumen Gentium that authoritatively references the 1949 Letter, to the Prayer Meeting of Assisi. Like many references used by the conciliar church, the 1949 letter has nothing to do with the interreligius meeting at Assisi; the letter has to do with the possibility of individuals to attain the state of grace, and salvation, without the Sacraments; the latter (Assisi) has to do with the salvific nature of false religions as J.P. II explained it. The fact that "salvation by implicit desire" is taught not only by the 1949 Letter (approved by Pius XII personally), but is also the undisputed teaching of the Church since at least St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is the relevant quote: Quote: Objection 2. Further, one does not need to receive what one has already acquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and virtues: thus we read (Acts 10:1-2): "There was a certain man in Cesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called Italian band, a religious man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, was afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by Baptism. Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ andtheir desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." God can bestow the Sacramental effect without the Sacrament; for example in the miraculous sanctification of Cornelius, as well as in the case of a perfect act of contrition, as well as a spiritual Communion. Even the first rational act of every human being, is either towards God and the state of Grace or away from God and the state of Mortal Sin; Summa I-II A-6: Quote: I answer that, It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. Therefore remission of original sin is possible, without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, and therefore so is salvation, for those who were to die in this state; which is what Fr. Feeney denied. Drew, Is there some reason you did not comment on this post? Specifically the quote from St. Thomas regarding implicit baptism of desire?

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:49 pm    Post subject:

Michael Wilson wrote: Drew stated: Quote: There is a direct thread from the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaching of "salvation by implicit desire", to Lumen Gentium that authoritatively references the 1949 Letter, to the Prayer Meeting of Assisi. Like many references used by the conciliar church, the 1949 letter has nothing to do with the interreligius meeting at Assisi; the letter has to do with the possibility of individuals to attain the state of grace, and salvation, without the Sacraments; the latter (Assisi) has to do with the salvific nature of false religions as J.P. II explained it. The fact that "salvation by implicit desire" is taught not only by the 1949 Letter (approved by Pius XII personally), but is also the undisputed teaching of the Church since at least St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is the relevant quote: Quote: Objection 2. Further, one does not need to receive what one has already acquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and virtues: thus we read (Acts 10:1-2): "There was a certain man in Cesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called Italian band, a religious man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, was afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by Baptism. Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ andtheir desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." God can bestow the Sacramental effect without the Sacrament; for example in the miraculous sanctification of Cornelius, as well as in the case of a perfect act of contrition, as well as a spiritual Communion. Even the first rational act of every human being, is either towards God and the state of Grace or away from God and the state of Mortal Sin; Summa I-II A-6: Quote: I answer that, It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. Therefore remission of original sin is possible, without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, and therefore so is salvation, for those who were to die in this state; which is what Fr. Feeney denied. Wisdom requires not only the right truths but the right hierarchical relationships with other truths. It requires the ability to properly weigh evidence and motives for credibility. I think that you have a better grasp on the current crisis in the Church than Pax Vobiscum or C. S. Gibson, who has demonstrated problems with basic grammar, the fundamental building block for correct judgments and reasoning. At least you know that there was a New Ecclesiology established in Lumen Gentium at Vatican II and that it contains heretical teaching. Still, the inability to see the relationship between the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the Prayer Meeting at Assisi by this time constitutes willful blindness. After all, what do you think a footnote is? Unitatis Redintegratio, the Vatican II decree on Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate, the declaration in the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions and Dignitatis Humanae, on Religious Liberty are pastoral documents that are predicated upon Lumen Gentium, the “dogmatic constitution on the Church,” which is the authoritative source for the New Ecclesiology. I have provided in previous posts authoritative opinions that establish this fact. In the encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II references Unitatis Redintegratio seventy times and Lumen Gentium only ten but the references to Lumen Gentium are the very foundation of the encyclical. Pope John Paul says in Ut Unum Sint, “In indicating the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio recalls above all the teaching on the Church set forth in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium in its chapter on the People of God.” The foot note referencing the 1949 Holy Office Letter is cited in the “chapter on the People of God.” The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms “salvation by implicit desire” for those who ‘want to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.’ These souls are supposedly saved in their false religions but not by their religions. In a previous thread I ask you to produce evidence that the modern Church teaches that they are “saved by their religions” which you hold to be a heretical error of Vatican II rather than the heretical doctrine of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The evidence produced in a previous exchange was an improper quotation from Unitatis Redintegration: Michael Wilson wrote: Drew, The question you asked me, was wether I could produce a statement that affirms that "The Church recognizes the salvific value of other religions" In response I quoted U.R. # 3.: Unitatis Redintegration wrote: It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. The bolded parts of the statement are quite explicit which I will now put together: "It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such,have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them(the false churches) as means of salvation." The statement is quite explicit, the "Churches" and "Communities" themselves are means of salvation. You have, like Gibson, a problem with grammar. To quote a text, not just out of context, but out of the very context of its own sentence itself by dropping a qualifying clause is not permitted in any acceptable textual critique. The dependent adjectival clause, “which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church,” modifies the noun, “means.” To “modify” means “to limit or to make more definite the meaning of a word.” You simply cannot say, “The statement is quite explicit, the ‘Churches’ and ‘Communities’ themselves are means of salvation,” and ignore the clause that modifies the word “means.” The dependent adjectival clause limits the means to those “which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” If the “means… derive their efficacy from the….Church,” then the “churches and communities themselves” cannot be the “means of salvation.” In this post you again say that, “Assisi has to do with the salvific nature of false religions.” The modern Church does not teach that people are “saved by their false religions." Furthermore, no one has proposed a material cause whereby a "false religion" could, in and of itself, produce a supernatural end. The 1949 Holy Office Letter does propose a material cause for salvation, that is, “the desire to be conformed to the will of a god who rewards and punishes.” There was no one at the Prayer Meeting of Assisi of whom it could not be said that they did not meet the standard of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. That “desire” is purely subjective and cannot be known by any objective standard. And because it is “unknown,” no one can be objectively excluded. That is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms and it is confirmed by an authoritative reference in Lumen Gentium which calls them part of “the People of God.” And that is exactly how John Paul II and Archbishop Lefebvre understood it and how Bishop Fellay understands it. In all these quotations they affirm their understanding that people are saved in their false religions and not by their false religions. Pope John Paul II wrote: Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour. John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998 Pope John Paul II wrote: For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995 Archbishop MarcelLefebvre wrote: The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote: And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven. Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006 Regarding the 1949 Holy Office Letter, you said: Michael Wilson wrote: I wholeheartedly accept and subscribe to the 1949 letter from the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney and the false doctrine which he proffesed, while explaining the the true meaning of EENS. The "Feeneyite" arguments are balderash. Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:34 pm Post subject: 1949 The difference between the 1949 letter and Assissi, is that the first upholds the teaching of EENS (as understood by the Magisterium of the Church) while the second recognizes the salvific value of other religions. As it stands, both Feeneyism and Assissi are condemned by the 1949 letter. Here is the relevant quote from Msgr. Fenton: Msgr Fenton wrote: The Holy Office interprets these teachings of the Mystici Corporis as a condemnation of two errors. One of them, that defended explicitly by members of the St. Benedict Center group, is the doctrine that no man be saved if he has only an implicit desire or intention to enter the Church. The other is the teaching that men may be saved “equally well (aequaliter)” in any religion. For the previous condemnation of this latter error the letter refers to two pronouncements by Pope Pius IX, his allocution Singulari quadam and his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore. Therefore to hold to either Assissi or to Feeneism, is to reject Mystici Corporis. The person who has some explaining to do is yourself: Do you reject the teaching of Mystici Corporis? If you do, then you do not belong on a Catholic Forum. Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: Re: 1949 letter Drew wrote: Michael Wilson, The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for salvation is “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is an internal and unknowable condition that may be possessed by everyone. Even Archbishop Lefebvre said, “The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics). This statement by Archbishop Lefebvre is consistent with everything that has been said by from JPII or Pope Benedict. You cannot produce a single statement that affirms that the Church “recognizes the salvific value of other religions.” The Prayer Meeting at Assisi affirms that these pagans, Jews, Moslems, Protestants, may all be “anonymous Christians.” Who are you to claim otherwise? What criteria are you making your judgment? Drew Drew, The Holy Office letter is in accord with the teaching of Misticy Corporis. Once again: Do you reject the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Misticy Corporis? Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: 1949 letter In the 1949 Holy Office, it is not the “Magisterium of the Church” speaking, it is not even an act of the “authentic magisterium” which I hope this thread has helped others better understand. It is a private letter sent to Archbishop Cushing of Boston and published by him three years later. It was entered into Denzinger’s by Fr. Karl Rahner who edited the 1962 edition. Fr. Rahner, the author of the Anonymous Christian, established at his first principle for his theological speculations the exact quote from Lumen Gentium that referenced the 1949 Holy Office Letter. It condemns Fr. Feeney’s defense of the Catholic dogma that there is “No salvation outside the Church.” As I have previously documented and what Fr. Fenton confirms is that the “condemnation” of Fr. Feeney’s teaching regarding “No salvation outside the (Catholic) Church” cites directly for its authority a mistranslation from the encyclical Mystici Corporis that radically altered the meaning of the text. So why the willful blindness to these facts that I have already thoroughly documented? Why this strained attempt to deny the relationship of the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the New Ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium? I think it is because of a pathological and most hypocritical hatred of Fr. Feeney that would make a Pharisees blush. You appeal to St. Thomas for you authoritative proof of Fr. Feeney’s heresy. The differences between St. Thomas and Fr. Feeney are trivial, absolutely trivial when compared to the differences between St. Thomas and Bishop Fellay, and for that matter, you. You and Bishop Fellay accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic teaching. Let’s show a comparison on those articles of divine and Catholic Faith the Church has dogmatically declared are necessary for salvation: Catholic DOGMA Necessity of Explicit Faith; Cannot be a heretic : St. Thomas YES: Fr. Feeney YES: Bishop Fellay NO Necessity of Subjection to the Roman Pontiff; Cannot be a schismatic : St. Thoman YES: Fr. Feeney YES: Bishop Fellay NO Member of the Church; Necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism : St. Thomas YES, at least in explicit desire: Fr. Feeney YES: Bishop Fellay NO The argument about ‘Baptism of Desire’ is nothing but a red herring. Fr. Feeney’s teaching on the sacrament of Baptism was not formulated until at least two years after the 1949 Holy Office Letter “condemnation.” The 1949 Holy Office Letter concerns Fr. Feeney’s defense of the Catholic dogma, “No salvation outside the (Catholic) Church.” The ground of Fr. Feeney’s theology is Catholic Dogma. He believes the Catholic teaching that dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith, that a dogmatic formulation is an irreformable Magisterial declaration of God’s divine revelation. The 1949 Holy Office Letter denies the dogmas that explicit faith, subjection to the Roman pontiff, and the sacraments are necessary, as a necessity of means, for salvation. The hatred for Fr. Feeney is because Fr. Feeney defends dogma, as dogma. The belief that there is such a thing as objective divinely revealed Truth that can be known and communicated imposes serious moral obligations. The hypocrisy in this matter is palpable. The accusation of Fr. Feeney for heresy, which is the rejection Catholic dogma, made by those who accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter and reject all dogma as dogma is an injustice that God will not ignore. How is it possible that you could seriously say to me, “Do you reject the teaching of Mystici Corporis? If you do, then you do not belong on a Catholic Forum,” when the only thing that has been “rejected” is a corrupted mistranslation of the papal encyclical, while you, relying upon that documented mistranslation, have rejected not just the dogmas that explicit faith, subjection to the Roman pontiff and the sacraments are necessary for salvation, as a necessity of means, but you reject dogma itself in its very essence? In the New Ecclesiology, dogma is relegated to the level of “perceptive norms of action” rather than a divinely revealed truth that are formal objects of divine and Catholic Faith, that is, “norms for believing.” That is a condemned error of Modernism. In the New Ecclesiology further corrupts dogma by claiming that dogma contains both infallible and contingent elements that the “living magisterium” must constantly meditate upon to eventually distil the immutable truths from the historical accretions. Pope Benedict began his reign by quoting Pope John XXIII that the formulation of doctrinal truths must be distinguished from those truths as they are in themselves. So how can Bishop Fellay or any Catholic defend Catholic truth when, having denied dogma, truth becomes essentially unknowable because it is constant evolution toward a more perfect refinement that can completely contradict its dogmatic formulation? When theologicans such as Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P. says: Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P. wrote: “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. The Infallibility of Vatican II The answer is he cannot. The deposit of faith is no longer a deposit to be faithfully guarded and handed on. "To be” is replaced with “becoming;” the objective truth with subjective perceptions. The faith, according to these lights, will be better known by our children just as we know it far better than our parents. This is nothing but a formula to destroy the faith. According to several reports, Bishop Fellay was willing and ready to sign the Doctrinal Preamble, that is the 1989 Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity, until he encountered resistance at the SSPX meeting of superiors in Albano. But eventually, if he remains as superior of the SSPX, he will have to submit because he accepts ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ paradigm of Pope Benedict and he has repudiated dogma as a line of defense. When that happens, Bishop Fellay will get a red hat and the SSPX will be splintered. The SSPX could learn from Fr. Feeney. His excommunication for disciplinary matters was removed, and he was “readmitted” to the Church without any doctrinal condemnation (which is further proof that the 1949 Holy Office Letter was not a “Magisterial” document) or the requirement of an "abjuration of any error.” This was done because his only “error” was taking dogma literally. The definition of heresy is the rejection of dogma. The Church could not condemn him. In the same sense, if the SSPX appeals to dogma demanding true Magisterial answers from the Church speaking in the name of God, then any possible censor from the “authentic magisterium” will be impossible. Unfortunately, Bishop Fellay, especially since the publication of Summorum Pontificum, has been used like a punching bag by the Vatican. He has fumbled both the liturgical question and now the doctrinal question. The best he can do is get the license plate of the truck that just ran over him. You, and anyone else who have thrown dogma to the wind for the 1949 Holy Office Letter, will be in the same ambulance wondering what happened. Drew

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:17 pm    Post subject:

Drew wrote: The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms “salvation by implicit desire” for those who ‘want to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.’ Drew, Several months ago you and I had a long discussion on this. As I pointed out at the time, the 1949 Letter does not teach "salvation by implicit desire", which you placed in quotation marks above. That phrase is not found in the Holy Office letter. It is a phrase that you made up, and attributed to the Holy Office Letter. It is simply your false interpretation of that Letter, which you dishonestly claim is found in the Letter itself. The "implicit desire" spoken of in the Letter is not an "implicit desire for salvation", but rather an implicit desire to formally join the Church. Those are two completely different things. Surely you, who pretends to be an expert in grammar, and who attempt to ridicule other for not possessing your grammatical abilities, can see the difference, right? Since explicit knowledge of the Church itself is not necessary for salvation, it is possible, under certain circumstances, that supernatural faith and baptism can communicate grace to an individual who has never heard of the Catholic Church. For example, if a heretical and schismatic Orthodox Priest came upon a pagan who was on his death bed; and if this Priest explained to him the Trinity, Incarnation and basics of the gospel, which the pagan, moved by actual grace, believed and accepted. If this pagan repented of his sins and received baptism, grace would be communicated to his soul, even if he had no knowledge of the Church founded by Christ. And if the pagan died immediately after receiving baptism, he would be saved. This is an example of how "implicit desire" to join the Church can suffice. If someone knowingly rejects the Church, that is another story; but if he believes what it is necessary to believe and is baptized, the lack of knowledge of the Church will not prevent him from receiving grace and being saved. And, as I pointed out to you numerous times in our previous discussion on this point, the Holy Office Letter states that "implicit desire" as such does not suffice for salvation, unless it is accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity. Holy Office Letter: "With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion ... But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: " Drew, from now on, for the sake of truth, please refrain from saying that the Holy Office letter teaches "salvation by implicit desire". And I think you owe a public apology to the readers of AQ for asserting that falsehood, especially since this was all pointed out to you months ago. Do you have the humility and honestly to admit that you told a lie when you attributed the phrase "explicit desire for salvation” to the 1949 Holy Office Letter, or will your pride prevent you from admitting the truth and apologizing to all those who you may have deceived? If the latter, I understand completely why you remain a Feeneyite in spite of the clear arguments that have been presented against your false and boarderline heretical position.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:20 pm    Post subject: temporaty blindness?

Drew stated: Quote: Still, the inability to see the relationship between the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the Prayer Meeting at Assisi by this time constitutes willful blindness. After all, what do you think a footnote is? You attribute to me a "willful blindness'' because I don't agree with your argument; I would rather characterize my position as the "involuntary blindness caused by the brilliance of your arguments, similar to that which occurs to one who looks directly at the Sun too long." I will therefore attempt to address your concerns in a future post. BTW. You still have not addressed the quotes from the Summa;I would like to see your take on these. This should be interesting. Ps. I refrained from answering you previously, because I didn't see the point to it. When I see that both people have stated their position and there is nothing left to do, but repeat the argument, then I usually "disengage", thinking that it is better to leave the discussion rather than get involved in another round of useless repetition. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:23 pm    Post subject:

Drew wrote: You have, like Gibson, a problem with grammar. To quote a text, not just out of context, but out of the very context of its own sentence itself by dropping a qualifying clause is not permitted in any acceptable textual critique. ... You made that clear in the previous thread when you defended the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches “salvation by implicit desire.” ... The 1949 Holy Office Letter does propose a material cause for salvation, that is, “the desire to be conformed to the will of a god who rewards and punishes.” Drew, You accused Michael Wilson of grammatical errors and quoting texts out of context, yet, as I showed in the last post, you have done far worse by making up a quote ("Salvation by implicit desire") and claiming it is found in the Holy Office Letter. Since you have been mischaracterizing this Letter for a long time, and claiming it teaches what it does not teach, I am going to quote it below in full. You need to read this Letter carefully. At this point, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Forget what you think this Letter teaches, and read what it actually says. And if you lack the ability to understand what it is teaching, you need to do some homework before you comment on it in the future. Quote: LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949. Your Excellency: This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation." After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities. Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given: We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792). Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20). Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire [to formally join the Church], so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed." Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related (ordered) to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677). But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801). From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without. From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28). Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences. Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church. Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons. Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation. Once again, the "implicit desire" refers to an implicit desire to formally join the Church; not an implicit desire to be saved. The Letter explicitly states that the "implicit desire" to join the "body" of the Church is not sufficient unless it is accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity. Therefore, I hope you will no longer make the erroneous claim that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office teaches "salvation by implicit desire" - a phrase that you made up. This is a textbooks straw man argument. You make up a phrase, claim the phrase if found in the Letter, and then build a case against the phrase you made up. This was all pointed out to you months ago, yet you have persisted in this dishonest argument.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:00 am    Post subject: Re: Union with the Greek Orthodox

Michael Wilson wrote: Charles stated: Quote: am not suggesting that the Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church, merely that they contain elements proper to the Catholic Church. A severed limb contains elements proper to the human body, though it is severed from it. Charles, this discussion is not about what your opinion is (you are obviously orthodox) , its about the teaching of Vatican II and fwd, on whether or not we have a "profound communion with the orthodox churches" Quote: With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profoundthat it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" Catechism of the Catholic Church (838) And whether it is compatible with the Pre-Vatican II teaching (no communion between the Church and any other religious body): Quote: 1. Pius IX, Jam Vos Omnes, 13 Sep 1868: "No non-Catholic sect or “all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create….Nor is it possible, either to say that these societies are either a member or a part of this same Church.” 2. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth “who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely ‘spiritual,’ as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link.” I believe and hold that the contradiction could not be greater; therefore I have stated that before Vatican II, the uniform teaching of the Church was that there was no "communion" between the Catholic Church and any other religious body; and that: Vatican II fwd stated that there is a "profound communion" between the Catholic Church and the "Orthodox." I cannot see how this does not follow: 1. The two statements are contradictory 2. The second statement represents a modification or change in the Ecclessiology of the Church. Michael, Please try not to turn purple, but I don't quite see the contradiction. I am the first to admit that there has been a lot of heretical nonsense spouted over the past 50 years, but I don't see it here. The CCC para 838 nowhere says that non Catholic societies are members or a part of the Catholic Church, and Pius XII is condemning the notion that the Church is a merely 'spiritual " entity in which all the various Christian bodies joined by some invisible link constitute the Church. If you look at the CCC it explicitly points out using a text from LG that the other Christian bodies are not in communion with the See of Peter. The most problematical point is the concept of "imperfect communion" but even that does not imply that the Catholic Church is no longer what she has always claimed to be. I do see what you are getting at, but I don't think the problem is ecclesiological. What the Vatican II statements seem to be suggesting is that by subjective disposition individuals who have not by any personal act separated themselves from the Church enjoy an imperfect communion with it by virtue of their baptism. Assuming that I have not succumbed to too many grammatical errors in this post I hope you will be able to understand it and comment further. Then again, it doesn't appear that your grammar is much bette than mine, so how shall we communicate?

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:23 am    Post subject:
Har! Har! My English teachers have been vindicated! _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:04 am    Post subject:

Regarding the "imperfect communion" of the Orthodox, a distinction needs to be made. It is possible that an individual who happens to attend an Orthodox "church" is united "imperfectly" to the Catholic Church. For example, a child of 8 or 9 years old who was baptized in an Orthodox Church and who has never committed a mortal sin against Faith, could certainly be united to the "soul" of the Catholic Church, to use the terminology of St. Robert Bellarmine and the catechism of Pius X. However, the schismatic and heretical Othodox "churches" as such are in no way a part of the one true Church. They are separated by schism and heresy; therefore, there is not a "incomplete union" with these "churches", but no union at all. If an individual is united to the soul of the Catholic Church it is in spite of the his affiliation with the heretical and schismatic group. The disctinction between the individual of good faith and the "church' as such is important.

Moderators

David Mueth



Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 315
Location: St. Clair, Missouri

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject:

TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE The usage of Traditional Language by Vatican II and ever after (and here and now) would have helped a lot to clarify matters such as this. One is either in the state of Sanctifying Grace, and so a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and so in full communion in the spiritual sense, or outside of grace and any real communion in the spiritual sense. It remains to work out what cuts one off from Sanctifying Grace. _________________ TRADITION VS VATICAN II Impossible to Coexist(largely)

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote: Drew wrote: The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms “salvation by implicit desire” for those who ‘want to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.’ Drew, Several months ago you and I had a long discussion on this. As I pointed out at the time, the 1949 Letter does not teach "salvation by implicit desire", which you placed in quotation marks above. That phrase is not found in the Holy Office letter. It is a phrase that you made up, and attributed to the Holy Office Letter. It is simply your false interpretation of that Letter, which you dishonestly claim is found in the Letter itself. The "implicit desire" spoken of in the Letter is not an "implicit desire for salvation", but rather an implicit desire to formally join the Church. Those are two completely different things. Surely you, who pretends to be an expert in grammar, and who attempt to ridicule other for not possessing your grammatical abilities, can see the difference, right? Since explicit knowledge of the Church itself is not necessary for salvation, it is possible, under certain circumstances, that supernatural faith and baptism can communicate grace to an individual who has never heard of the Catholic Church. For example, if a heretical and schismatic Orthodox Priest came upon a pagan who was on his death bed; and if this Priest explained to him the Trinity, Incarnation and basics of the gospel, which the pagan, moved by actual grace, believed and accepted. If this pagan repented of his sins and received baptism, grace would be communicated to his soul, even if he had no knowledge of the Church founded by Christ. And if the pagan died immediately after receiving baptism, he would be saved. This is an example of how "implicit desire" to join the Church can suffice. If someone knowingly rejects the Church, that is another story; but if he believes what it is necessary to believe and is baptized, the lack of knowledge of the Church will not prevent him from receiving grace and being saved. And, as I pointed out to you numerous times in our previous discussion on this point, the Holy Office Letter states that "implicit desire" as such does not suffice for salvation, unless it is accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity. Holy Office Letter: "With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion ... But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: " Drew, from now on, for the sake of truth, please refrain from saying that the Holy Office letter teaches "salvation by implicit desire". And I think you owe a public apology to the readers of AQ for asserting that falsehood, especially since this was all pointed out to you months ago. Do you have the humility and honestly to admit that you told a lie when you attributed the phrase "explicit desire for salvation” to the 1949 Holy Office Letter, or will your pride prevent you from admitting the truth and apologizing to all those who you may have deceived? If the latter, I understand completely why you remain a Feeneyite in spite of the clear arguments that have been presented against your false and boarderline heretical position. Drew wrote: You have, like Gibson, a problem with grammar. To quote a text, not just out of context, but out of the very context of its own sentence itself by dropping a qualifying clause is not permitted in any acceptable textual critique. ... You made that clear in the previous thread when you defended the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches “salvation by implicit desire.” ... The 1949 Holy Office Letter does propose a material cause for salvation, that is, “the desire to be conformed to the will of a god who rewards and punishes.” Drew, You accused Michael Wilson of grammatical errors and quoting texts out of context, yet, as I showed in the last post, you have done far worse by making up a quote ("Salvation by implicit desire") and claiming it is found in the Holy Office Letter. Since you have been mischaracterizing this Letter for a long time, and claiming it teaches what it does not teach, I am going to quote it below in full. You need to read this Letter carefully. At this point, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Forget what you think this Letter teaches, and read what it actually says. And if you lack the ability to understand what it is teaching, you need to do some homework before you comment on it in the future. Once again, the "implicit desire" refers to an implicit desire to formally join the Church; not an implicit desire to be saved. The Letter explicitly states that the "implicit desire" to join the "body" of the Church is not sufficient unless it is accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity. Therefore, I hope you will no longer make the erroneous claim that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office teaches "salvation by implicit desire" - a phrase that you made up. This is a textbooks straw man argument. You make up a phrase, claim the phrase if found in the Letter, and then build a case against the phrase you made up. This was all pointed out to you months ago, yet you have persisted in this dishonest argument. Pax Vobiscum: You are careless in your examination of posts and you reply before giving sufficient reflection to what you are saying. Thus, your judgment of moral failing is precipitous and unjustified. It is a lot easier not to put your foot in your mouth than have to pull it out. The term “salvation by implicit desire” is, as I have repeatedly, repeatedly, said to you, is my descriptive terminology for the teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Of course the “phrase is not found in the (1949) Holy Office letter.” I never attributed the quotation to the 1949 Holy Office Letter. What I have said it that “’salvation by implicit desire,’ is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches.” I have also said to you and others that if you do not like my terminology you could call it, “salvation by implicit desire to enter the Church” or, “salvation by explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.” As I said before to you, “the terms mean the same thing in the context of the 1949 Holy Office Letter.” The term “salvation by implicit desire,” as a descriptive term, summates what the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches. I am posting below quotes from earlier exchanges with the links that I made to you over a year ago on this question. Drew Drew- Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:23 pm wrote: http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=394746&highlight=#394746 Pax Vobiscum: You begin each post by saying, “I don't know what I can add,” and then proceed to show that you really don’t have anything more substantial to add. “Salvation by implicit desire” is taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Look again at the pertinent words from the Letter: 1949 Holy Office Letter wrote: Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. The final end of the “implicit desire” is to “obtain eternal salvation.” Your confusion is that you insist that the final end of “implicit desire” is “to be united to her (the Church).” Desire is subjective. When desire is implicit, subjectively the object of desire is unknown. If it is unknown subjectively, it cannot be communicated. The object of this “implicit desire” cannot be objectively known. The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the final end of this “implicit desire” is “eternal salvation.” It is appropriate to descriptively term this as “salvation by implicit desire.” If you wish to dispute the use of this phrase then produce objective criteria to distinguish between “salvation” and “membership in the Church” as objective ends of “implicit desire." That is something you or anybody else cannot do without, as you have demonstrated, looking foolish. The straw man is not the argument. It's You. I have asked from you to produce a "Credo of implicit faith." You could have saved yourself some trouble if you had answered in the first place that there is no such thing as “implicit supernatural faith.” You now say that, “my position is,” salvation requires, as a minimum, belief in the “Trinity and the Incarnation.” This faith has a formal object and is therefore explicit. The words “Trinity” and “Incarnation” appear nowhere in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The letter does not go beyond ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes.’ Fr. Fenton says regarding this “belief” that, “He must actually and explicitly accept as certain some definite truths which have been supernaturally revealed by God. He must accept explicitly and precisely as revealed truths the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order and the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil. Our letter manifestly alludes to this necessity when it quotes, in support of its teaching on the necessity of supernatural faith in all those who are saved, the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” I discussed the problem with this in the previous post. The ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes’ can be know by natural philosophy. The attendees at the Prayer Meeting as Assisi could profess this belief and there is no possible way to determine whether or not this faith is natural or supernatural. You apparently agree with Fr. Fenton who said, “Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation.” Two obvious problems: Firstly, Fr. Fenton, you, or what “most theologians teach” is really inconsequential. The 1949 Holy Office Letter does not mention a single article of divine and Catholic Faith necessary for salvation and it is nothing but a gratuitous concession to appeal to doctrines of faith that the Holy Office failed to mention but did not exclude. What is worse for your position, the quotes by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, JPII and Lumen Gentium, that authoritatively reference the 1949 Holy Office Letter, do not mention a single article of divine and Catholic faith that must be believed for salvation. Bishop Fellay wrote: Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven. Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006 If this “Hindu in Tibet” believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation, he would not be a Hindu. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics Buddhists are “saved in their religion but not by it.” Not a single article of divine and Catholic faith is mentioned. If this Buddhist believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation, he would not be a Buddhist. If you want a more authoritative interpretation of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, Lumen Gentium teaches that, "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” This Lumen Gentium statement directly references the 1949 Holy Office Letter and not a single article of divine and Catholic faith is referenced. Then there is JPII: Pope John Paul II wrote: “For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible… without external membership in the Church…It is mysterious for those who receive the grace (of salvation), because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.” Again, “they have not received the Gospel” yet “salvation is accessible.” Not a single article of divine and Catholic faith is mentioned and yet “salvation is accessible.” You and Fr. Fenton, on your own, have read something into the 1949 Holy Office Letter that is not there. Nothing more is mentioned that a ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes.' Secondly, if a person believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, it has been divinely revealed to them either directly by God or by a person teaching the Gospel truths. The person therefore has an object of his belief and the belief is therefore explicit. If a person with explicit faith is ignorant of the Church, he will not be punished for failing to fulfill the precept to enter the Church for as previously said, precepts to do not bind in cases of moral or physical impossibility and to talk about “fulfilling a precept in voto” is an abuse of language. The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms the possibility of salvation by implicit desire. It affirms the necessity of “supernatural faith” but mentions only the belief in a ‘god who rewards and punishes’ which can be known by natural philosophy. The is nothing here to necessarily exclude any participant of the Prayer Meeting at Assisi as being in the state of grace and temple of the Holy Ghost. Your requirement of belief in the “Trinity and Incarnation” as necessary for salvation is nothing more than your “position.” Well, your “position” may prevent you from being invited to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi but at the same time, your “position” makes any effective objection to the event impossible. Divine revelation, dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith is all that is known with absolute certitude regarding salvation. Dogma must form the boundary of your theological speculation. When your speculation calls the truth of divine revelation into question you should give up your speculation rather than give up the divine revelation. Again, I thank God that you are not representing the SSPX in their discussion with Rome. The very idea of defending truth is not your field. You certainly are not stupid but you are blind. Drew Another of the many post addressing the same question. Drew on Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:57 pm wrote: http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=394466&highlight=#394466 Made up the phrase? Made up the doctrine? I admit the doctrine is “made up” but not made up by me. As to the phrase, “salvation by implicit desire,” it is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches. The pertinent sentences from the 1949 Holy Office Letter are: 1949 Holy Office Letter wrote: “One may obtain eternal salvation…. it is necessary that at least he be united to (the Church) by desire and longing…. God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” You have repeatedly interpreted this to say that, “The object of explicit and implicit desire, is formal membership in the visible society of the Church.” Is that possible? The Holy Office Letter 1949 says that the “implicit desire is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” Desire exists in the subject. The object of desire, which is explicit, is “to be conformed to the will of God.” Implicit desire to be united to the Church is an assumed attribute of the “good disposition of soul” when the person has the object of his intention to be “conformed to the will of God.” Such a thing is unknown both subjectively and objectively. It is the assumption of this “implicit desire” that leads to salvation that is novel. It has not been revealed by God………. “Salvation by implicit desire” could also be called “salvation by explicit desire to be ‘conformed to the will of God.’” It would mean the same thing. But is that sufficient for salvation? As the Open Letter to Dr. Jones said, “The material cause of this 'membership' (in the Church) and salvation is the 'good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.'” The Open Letter calls it “a form of Pelagianism.” But “the reason we have having a problem communicating” is because you are begging the question. Is this desire “to be conformed to the will of God” sufficient for salvation? I know, and you have said, that that Holy Office Letter 1949 refers to supernatural faith, hope, and charity are necessary for salvation. But what are they really saying? Supernatural hope and charity presuppose supernatural faith. Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. The Holy Office Letter 1949 and Msgr. Fenton do not mention a single article of Catholic faith that is necessary for salvation and neither have you. I have asked you produce a Credo of “implicit faith” to know exactly what you mean. What is this “supernatural faith” the Holy Office Letter 1949 requires? Msgr. Fenton says, “He must accept explicitly and precisely as revealed truths the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order and the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil. Our letter (Holy Office Letter 1949) manifestly alludes to this necessity when it quotes, in support of its teaching on the necessity of supernatural faith in all those who are saved, the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.'” The problem here is that the existence of God who punishes evil and rewards good can be known by natural philosophy. It is the common belief of Moslems, Jews, Aztecs, Satanists, and countless others. Msgr. Fenton can say that, "this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man" but that is not in the Holy Office Letter 1949, and it is unknowable on what grounds a person believes in a God who punishes and rewards……. Drew You have accused me of misquoting the 1949 Holy Office Letter. That is not true. As long as I have defined the terms I am using and use those terms in univocal manner, I have not deceived anyone. If you are unable to understand the arguments you should not be commenting at all. The reposts from the previous thread addresses your current comments in sufficient detail that I think nothing further is necessary. If you have anything new to add I would like to hear but I do not think that is the case. Drew

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:36 pm    Post subject:

Drew, Read the following carefully. Drew wrote: “You have repeatedly interpreted this to say that, “The object of explicit and implicit desire, is formal membership in the visible society of the Church.” Is that possible? To clarify, the object of the explicit desire is to do the will of God; the object of the implicit desire is to enter the Church. And yes, it is possible for someone to implicitly desire to be a member of the Church. The scenario I provided earlier shows how this is possible. In the example, there was a pagan on his death bed who was approached by an Orthodox priest. The priest explained the Trinity, Incarnation and basics of the Gospel, but did not get around to discussing the Church or Pope. If the pagan believed all the truths that the Orthodox Priest told him, repented of his sins and was baptized, he would receive the state of grace. If this pagan was so disposed that he would have desire to join the Church and submit to the Pope if these truths were explained to him, this “good disposition of soul” and explicit desire to do the will of God would suffice as the implicit desire to join the Church. Holy Office Letter: “These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. Notice, the letter speaks of two categories of people: Those who are “actually incorporated into the Church as members”, and those who are “united to the Church only by desire". Also notice what the object of the desire is in the second category of people: to be united to the Church. Holy Office letter: “Church, he [Pius XII] mentions those who "are related (ordered) to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire”. Notice again what the object of the "unconscious yearning" is. Holy Office Letter: “But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. Once again, notice again what the object of the desire is: to enter the Church. Now, in order for a person to have an implicit desire to enter the Church, they must have a good disposition of soul whereby they “explicitly” desire to do the will of God. If someone knows about the Church or some other dogma and rejects it, such a good disposition is not present. They must accept at lest the minimum truths that require explicit belief, and be so disposed that they would accept the others if they were explained to them. Drew wrote: ” The Holy Office Letter 1949 says that the “implicit desire is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” Desire exists in the subject. The object of desire, which is explicit, is “to be conformed to the will of God.” Right. The explicit object is to do the will of God; but the implicit object is to be “united to the Church”. The explicit desire to do the will of God contains the implicit desire to enter the Church. The one contains the other. Notice what the quote you provided says: “implicit desire is included in that good disposition of soul”. The explicit includes the implicit. Do you see? The explicit desire to do the will of God contains within it the implicit desire to join the Church. Drew wrote: Implicit desire to be united to the Church is an assumed attribute of the “good disposition of soul” when the person has the object of his intention to be “conformed to the will of God.” Right. The explicit desire to do the will of God contains within it the implicit desire – the “unconscious yearning” - to be joined the Church. Holy Office letter: “Church, he [Pius XII] mentions those who "are related (ordered) to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious [implicit] yearning and desire”. Drew wrote: Such a thing is unknown both subjectively and objectively. It is the assumption of this “implicit desire” that leads to salvation that is novel. It has not been revealed by God………. Where did you get the idea that implicit desire leads to salvation? That is not what the Holy Office Letter teaches. It teaches that the “implicit desire” to enter the Church, contained with the [explicit] desire to do the will of God, must be accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity. It is the supernatural faith and charity that saves. The "implicit desire" to enter the Church is not what saves; it is merely contained within the good disposition of the one who has not heard of the Church, but who desires to do the will of God. Drew wrote: I have asked from you to produce a "Credo of implicit faith." You could have saved yourself some trouble if you had answered in the first place that there is no such thing as “implicit supernatural faith.” That is a straw man argument. The Holy Office letter does not say implicit faith suffices for salvation. On the contrary, the Letter teaches that the “implicit desire” to join the Church must be accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity (the state of grace). Holy Office Letter: “But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith” What the Letter teaches is that if a person has supernatural faith and is in the state of grace, but is ignorant of the Catholic Church, if he is so disposed that he would seek to enter the Church if he is aware of it, such a good disposition constitutes an “implicit desire” to join the Church. I can’t understand why you are unable to grasp this. As I have mentioned before, the Holy Office letter does not teach "salvation by implicit desire". It teaches salvation by supernatural faith and perfect charity, combined with an implicit deisre to enter the Church. I have comments of the rest of what you wrote as well, but this is the key point.

Moderators

G. des Lauriers



Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 65

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:16 am    Post subject:

Every pre-Vatican II seminarian was taught what most theologians have held throughout the Church's history, namely that supernatural faith requires explicit faith in at least the Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore, when the Holy Office letter talks about the necessity of supernatural faith, it necessarily makes explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation a requirement of salvation. This faith may come out of a direct revelation from God at the moment of death, and as the end result of a lifetime of cooperating with actual graces in seeking to live a good life; but this faith has to be there. Otherwise, no one can be saved.

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:01 pm    Post subject:

G. des Lauriers wrote: Every pre-Vatican II seminarian was taught what most theologians have held throughout the Church's history, namely that supernatural faith requires explicit faith in at least the Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore, when the Holy Office letter talks about the necessity of supernatural faith, it necessarily makes explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation a requirement of salvation. This faith may come out of a direct revelation from God at the moment of death, and as the end result of a lifetime of cooperating with actual graces in seeking to live a good life; but this faith has to be there. Otherwise, no one can be saved. Right. One thing I would add is that there were some theologians who speculated as to the possibly that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was not necessary. This was certainly the minority opinion, but I know of at least one who taught that. My guess as to why the Holy Office letter simply said supernatural faith was necessary for salvation, and did not address the Trinity and Incarnation specifically as the necessary objects of explicit faith, is because that was not the point of the Letter. In other words, the letter was not written to address what the requirements were for explicit faith; instead it was written to address the how a person can satisfy the necessity of beloning to the Church when he appears to be outside of the Church. The answer is that, under certain circumstances, an implicit desire to join the Church can suffice. That's my guess as to why the Letter only mentions what is taught in Hebrews 11:6, and does also mention the Trinity and Incarnation.

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:12 pm    Post subject:
The last sentence should have read: That's my guess as to why the Letter only mentions what is taught in Hebrews 11:6, and does NOT also mention the Trinity and Incarnation.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:08 pm    Post subject:

Drew, Thank you for providing the link to the discussion we had on this topic last year; after reading through it again, I can see that Pax Vobiscum, Vadis, and C.S. Gibson, have thoroughly refuted your propositions; this new thread is basically a re-run of the same arguments, which have already been answered; why go through the whole thing again? Again: What is your opinion on the quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas on "implicit Baptism of desire?'' _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:11 pm    Post subject:
Charles, I have already stated my position and you have replied; I appreciate your input and the gentlemanly responses. I think this is a good place to stop and shake hands. Always a pleasure. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 927
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Fr. Feeney

Vadis wrote: as an aside, but at the core of this discussion is Fr. Feeney's false position; “But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Therefore, I should be inclined to say that this man, by his perfect act of love of God, was freed from one of the effects of original namely, the absence of sanctifying grace, but was not freed from the obligation to go on and secure a title to the Beatific Vision."(Bread of Life, Chapter VII, The Waters of Salvation) Here is an example of the heterodoxy of Fr. Feeney: Contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Church Fr. Feeney denies that Sanctifying grace does not "secure a title to the Beatific vision"??? That is: open the gates of heaven for us, by making us adopted sons of God and co-heirs with our Lord of His eternal kingdom. _________________ MichaelW.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote: Drew, Read the following carefully. Drew wrote: “You have repeatedly interpreted this to say that, “The object of explicit and implicit desire, is formal membership in the visible society of the Church.” Is that possible? To clarify, the object of the explicit desire is to do the will of God; the object of the implicit desire is to enter the Church. And yes, it is possible for someone to implicitly desire to be a member of the Church. The scenario I provided earlier shows how this is possible. In the example, there was a pagan on his death bed who was approached by an Orthodox priest. The priest explained the Trinity, Incarnation and basics of the Gospel, but did not get around to discussing the Church or Pope. If the pagan believed all the truths that the Orthodox Priest told him, repented of his sins and was baptized, he would receive the state of grace. If this pagan was so disposed that he would have desire to join the Church and submit to the Pope if these truths were explained to him, this “good disposition of soul” and explicit desire to do the will of God would suffice as the implicit desire to join the Church. I have never said, or suggested, that there is no such thing as “implicit desire” or for that matter, “implicit faith.” A child can hold the whole of Catholic Faith and still be ignorant of specific dogmatic propositions which he holds implicitly. However, to make a judgment of “implicit faith” requires objective criteria that can be known and communicated. The same is true for “implicit desire.” The 1949 Holy Office Letter cites as their objective criteria the ‘explicit desire to be conformed to the will of a god who rewards and punishes.’ That desire can be known by natural philosophy, and can be predicated about everyone at the Assisi Prayer Meeting. Pax Vobiscum wrote: Holy Office Letter: “These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. Notice, the letter speaks of two categories of people: Those who are “actually incorporated into the Church as members”, and those who are “united to the Church only by desire". Also notice what the object of the desire is in the second category of people: to be united to the Church. Holy Office letter: “Church, he [Pius XII] mentions those who "are related (ordered) to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire”. Notice again what the object of the "unconscious yearning" is. After all the previous posts that have documented the mistranslated clause from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis, that is used for the justification for the novel doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire," why would you use as you defense the mistranslated clause? And the translation that you are using is even worse than the translation used in the 1949 Holy Office Letter and by Fr. Fenton. Mr. David Drew wrote: “The 1949 Letter as published also contained a critical mistranslation of a passage from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis, by saying that non-Catholics "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," The words “related to” are a mistranslation of the Latin which should read “ordained toward.” Also the Latin original is in the subjunctive mood expressing a wish or desire, and not a condition of fact. It is properly translated as “may be ordained towards” and not, as was done, in the indicative mood as “related to.” It is evident that this mistranslation entirely changes the meaning of what Pius XII said.” Why The SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition Drew, Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:07 am wrote: http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=394310&highlight=#394310 Pax Vobiscum: The “issue” concerns a novel teaching of salvation by implicit desire in the 1949 Holy Office Letter for which Msgr. Fenton admits has its origin in the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis by Pope Pius XII. The reference quotation from the encyclical is: The Latin text: Quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur, tot tamen tantisque caelestibus muneribus adiumentisque carent, quibus in Catholica solummodo Ecclesia frui licet. This is mistranslated as: For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. The phrase, “they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body...” is a mistranslation. The correct translation should be, “they may be ordained towards the Mystical Body…” The mistranslation uses the incorrect words “relationship with” and it is in the incorrect indictative mode. The correct reading should be in the subjunctive mode which expresses a ‘wish or desire contrary to fact.’ The English Grammar Dictionary says, “The subjunctive mode is used to express hypothetical or imaginary situations.” The novel doctrine of salvation by implicit desire is from the 1949 Holy Office Letter, and the justification for this doctrine is grounded in a lie. There is nothing from any of the Fathers, Doctors, Holy Scripture, accepted tradition, popes, or councils that teach or has ever taught salvation by implicit desire. This lie was planted in the 1949 Holy Office Letter, rooted by Fr. Karl Rahner in Denzinger’s, nurtured in Lumen Gentium, brought to full maturity in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ and paraded about in potted plants at the Prayer Meeting of Assisi. This novel doctrine denies defined Catholic dogmas that the explicit faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Dogma is divine revelation. It is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. Your theology must be grounded in dogma or it will never grasp truth. What should be translated, “may be ordained towards,” the 1949 Holy Office Letter and Fr. Fenton translate, “have a certain relationship with,” you have corrupted even further by translating, “are united to.” If you do not use the proper translation, you cannot know the proper meaning. Suffice to say, the entire novel teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter is grounded upon a lie. Pax Vobiscum wrote: Holy Office Letter: “But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. Once again, notice again what the object of the desire is: to enter the Church. Now, in order for a person to have an implicit desire to enter the Church, they must have a good disposition of soul whereby they “explicitly” desire to do the will of God. If someone knows about the Church or some other dogma and rejects it, such a good disposition is not present. They must accept at lest the minimum truths that require explicit belief, and be so disposed that they would accept the others if they were explained to them. Drew wrote: ” The Holy Office Letter 1949 says that the “implicit desire is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” Desire exists in the subject. The object of desire, which is explicit, is “to be conformed to the will of God.” Right. The explicit object is to do the will of God; but the implicit object is to be “united to the Church”. The explicit desire to do the will of God contains the implicit desire to enter the Church. The one contains the other. Notice what the quote you provided says: “implicit desire is included in that good disposition of soul”. The explicit includes the implicit. Do you see? The explicit desire to do the will of God contains within it the implicit desire to join the Church. Drew wrote: Implicit desire to be united to the Church is an assumed attribute of the “good disposition of soul” when the person has the object of his intention to be “conformed to the will of God.” Right. The explicit desire to do the will of God contains within it the implicit desire – the “unconscious yearning” - to be joined the Church. Holy Office letter: “Church, he [Pius XII] mentions those who "are related (ordered) to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious [implicit] yearning and desire”. You have learned nothing since this question was addressed to you more than a year ago. The clause in question is in the subjunctive mood. It is not, as the translation you are using, in the indicative mood. The proper translation should be, “may be ordained towards the Mystical Body.” As I have said before, Fr. Fenton dates this novel teaching of “salvation by implicit desire” to the mistranslated clause in the1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis. Nowhere in the scripture or tradition of the Church has it been revealed by God that the ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god that rewards and punishes’ contains within it an implicit desire to be “united with the Church” which is the only necessary and sufficient material cause of salvation. As I have said before to you, the object of implicit desire is unknown to the subject and cannot be communicated. It cannot be objectively known. There is no way for you or anyone else to know what the object of “implicit desire” is when the only objective criteria is something that can be predicated about everyone at the Assisi Prayer Meeting. Drew Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:33 am wrote: http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=394529&highlight=#394529 Pax Vobiscum: Implicit desire for baptism and implicit desire to enter the Church, and we might add, implicit desire for salvation, are meaningless propositions. Desire is subjective. Seen from the perspective of the subject, implicit desire does not have a known object of thought and what is unknown cannot be communicated to others. It is not possible for a person with implicit desire to distinguish these various objects of thought. Seen from the objective perspective, a man’s desires are unknown. I may be confused about a lot of things but I am not such a fool as to babble about nonsense like distinguishing between the indistinguishable or discussing square circles. Paxz Vobiscum wrote: Drew wrote: Such a thing is unknown both subjectively and objectively. It is the assumption of this “implicit desire” that leads to salvation that is novel. It has not been revealed by God………. Where did you get the idea that implicit desire leads to salvation? That is not what the Holy Office Letter teaches. It teaches that the “implicit desire” to enter the Church, contained with the [explicit] desire to do the will of God, must be accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity. It is the supernatural faith and charity that saves. The "implicit desire" to enter the Church is not what saves; it is merely contained within the good disposition of the one who has not heard of the Church, but who desires to do the will of God. I got the idea from the 1949 Holy Office Letter because that is what the document says. Take a look at this post. Drew, Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:23 pm wrote: http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=394746&highlight=#394746 “Salvation by implicit desire” is taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Look again at the pertinent words from the Letter: 1949 Holy Office Letter wrote: Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. The final end of the “implicit desire” is to “obtain eternal salvation.” Your confusion is that you insist that the final end of “implicit desire” is “to be united to her (the Church).” Desire is subjective. When desire is implicit, subjectively the object of desire is unknown. If it is unknown subjectively, it cannot be communicated. The object of this “implicit desire” cannot be objectively known. The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the final end of this “implicit desire” is “eternal salvation.” It is appropriate to descriptively term this as “salvation by implicit desire.” If you wish to dispute the use of this phrase then produce objective criteria to distinguish between “salvation” and “membership in the Church” as objective ends of “implicit desire." That is something you or anybody else cannot do without, as you have demonstrated, looking foolish. The straw man is not the argument. It's You. I am still waiting for you to produce the objective criteria to distinguish the various objects of “implicit desire.” Pax Vobiscum wrote: Drew wrote wrote: I have asked from you to produce a "Credo of implicit faith." You could have saved yourself some trouble if you had answered in the first place that there is no such thing as “implicit supernatural faith.” That is a straw man argument. The Holy Office letter does not say implicit faith suffices for salvation. On the contrary, the Letter teaches that the “implicit desire” to join the Church must be accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity (the state of grace). The quote that you are calling a “straw man argument” is not, nor was it ever intended to be an “argument” at all. Do you know what the structure of an “argument” requires? I had asked you several times to produce a “Credo of Implicit faith.” This quotation is only an acknowledgment that after many requests you finally attempted to answer a question. So when you accuse someone of a “straw man argument,” you should begin by clearly restating your opponent’s argument in terms that he would agree with. You cannot “restate” the above quotation as an “argument” because it is not one. You accusation is just a form of detraction. Pax Vobiscum wrote: Holy Office Letter: “But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith” What the Letter teaches is that if a person has supernatural faith and is in the state of grace, but is ignorant of the Catholic Church, if he is so disposed that he would seek to enter the Church if he is aware of it, such a good disposition constitutes an “implicit desire” to join the Church. I can’t understand why you are unable to grasp this. There is not a single article of divine and Catholic Faith mentioned in the 1949 Holy Office Letter, not one. The only necessary and sufficient criteria, the material cause, to “obtain eternal salvation” is an ‘explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.’ As Fr. Fenton confirms, this novel teaching references for its sole authority the mistranslated clause from the 1943 encyclical, Mystici Corporis. This “belief” can be known by natural philosophy. You or anyone else cannot know if this "belief" is of the “natural” or “supernatural” order. That can only be known by God and God has not revealed this to anyone. The Catholic dogmas that explicit Faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff and the sacrament are necessary, as a necessity of means, are uniformly set aside by the 1949 Holy Office Letter and by you. At the Prayer Meeting at Assisi the presumption of “supernatural faith” by these standards could be predicated about everyone present, even the Pope. You see, it is not that I am “unable to grasp this.” I “understand” it quite well. But the only thing we know with certitude is what God has revealed, who can "neither deceive nor be deceived." Only a fool would throw out Catholic dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith, the denial of which makes one a heretic, for a novel teaching grounded upon a mistranslation from a 1943 encyclical, communicated in a personal letter to Cardinal Cushing, published from the Diocese of Boston, and inserted in Denzinger's by Fr. Karl Rahner. The 1949 Holy Office Letter is not a Magesterial Act, it is not even an act of the "authentic magisterium." The only backing for the 1949 Holy Office Letter is its citation in Lumen Gentium as the authoritative document supporting the New Ecclesiology. Pax Vobiscum wrote: As I have mentioned before, the Holy Office letter does not teach "salvation by implicit desire". It teaches salvation by supernatural faith and perfect charity, combined with an implicit deisre to enter the Church. I have comments of the rest of what you wrote as well, but this is the key point. Perfect charity, the state of grace, is the formal cause of salvation for anyone who is saved. That is unknown to even the person in the state of grace. It is known only to God. But God has revealed specific necessary material causes for salvation, without which, the formal cause is impossible. From the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the end of “implicit desire to enter the Church” is “eternal salvation.” I have called this “salvation by implicit desire.” If you do not like the terminology or understand it that is your problem. You can say “salvation by explicit desire to be conformed to the will of a god who rewards and punishes” or “salvation by implicit desire to enter the Church” or whatever you like. But whatever you call it, it has not been revealed by God as the necessary and sufficient material cause of salvation. It is amazing that you have thrown out dogma, which is divinely revealed truth, for this mess of pottage. The attendees at the Prayer Meeting of Assisi uniformly can be assumed to believe in a ‘god who rewards and punishes’, that being the only presumptive evidence for their “implicit desire to enter the Church.” And now that they are, or as you say, “united” to the Church by “implicit desire,” (or should we say, “’subsist in’ the Church by implicit desire”?), we can assumed that they are in the state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost. You have no argument not to pray with them any more than you can refuse to pray with any baptized Catholic who can recite the Credo and pray for the Pope at Sunday Mass. Whatever faith you have it is not the Catholic faith revealed by Jesus Christ. Even if Bishop Fellay does not sign the 1989 Profession of Faith, you have no grounds not to. I am curious to know what possible arguments you could marshal to morally justify attending a SSPX chapel? I will attend an Indult/Summorum Pontificum grant only out of necessity, but since those who regularly do attend accept the "hermeneutic of continuity" and believe that the problems with Vatican II are only cosmetic, they can offer no defense of the Faith which they do not see threatened. It is the faith that is being attacked and every Catholic is called upon to come to its defense. The only weapon we possess is the appeal to divinely revealed truth, Catholic dogma. Drew

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:55 pm    Post subject:

The last time we had this discussion, I repeatedly thought to myself (and I think I even posted it several times) "I don't know what else to say". Once again the same thought came to my mind. I really don't know what else to say. Everything has been explained to you over and over again, yet for some reason you are unable to see it. If there is a Feeneyite cures, brother, you've got it. The Holy Office letter was written for the purpose of explaining that it is possible for someone who has supernatural faith and perfect charity to be saved, even if they are not a formal member of the Church. The "implicit desire", which is contained within explicit desire to do the will of God, is what suffices in place of actual membership. The implicit desire in question is not to be saved, since a person with faith, hope and charity will desire that explicitly (if they are above the age of reason). I've said all I can say. If you haven't been able to grasp this yet, I don't think there is anything I can say to help you. I actually think God has darkened your intellect as a punishment for rejecting this document and calling it heretical. I really don't know how else to understand your inability to see what is so obvious. I'll pray for you.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject:

Michael, Thank you for your always interesting input. And let us be grateful that we who are such grammatical illiterates are able to communicate, and seemingly understand one another. I suppose our implicit desire for writing helps. Drew, In common with Michael Wilson and Pax Vobiscum, I have little more to add, except to ask you if you really believe that the theologians of the Holy Office deliberated in English? I for one very much doubt it. And please do think for a minute. Do you really believe that such men were so theologically illiterate that they believed in anything as nonsensical as "salvation by implicit desire" simply for salvation? I daresay Hitler and Stalin would qualify for that. What the 1949 letter says is merely the common view of Catholic theologians. I am very cautious in using the word 'heretic", but you certainly demonstrate a contempt for the Magisterium which is astonishing. Any letter which came from the Holy Office of which the Holy Father himself was the head, and which touches upon the interpretation of a dogma of the faith, is most definitely magisterial. Whether or not it is in Latin or English or Swahili, and whether or not it is in the Acta. I believe the estimable Fr Cekada looked into the whole question and concluded that the Letter possesses magisterial authority. How could it not given its subject matter? All that said I am far from using the argument of authority alone as I find the teaching of St Thomas, and all the other Catholic theologians quite persuasive on this point, and equally I feel it a duty to submit to the high supernatural authority of the Holy See, and that is not simply an argument from authority, but rather a submission to the Church as divinely established and the Mystical Body of Our Lord. What I will ask you is to cite a Catholic theologian who agrees with you. I'll accept Scotus, Suarez, the Salamanticenses, Gotti, Billuart, Franzelin, Hurter, Billot, Tanqueray, Zubizarreta, Garrigou-Lagrange.and I suspect I have forgotten one or two, yes there's Pesch too. Now if you can cite even one of them to support your case, I am willing to listen. To save wasted time, however, I will say that I exclude in advance your private interpretation of Trent or Florence. That's simply because as Catholics we accept the approved teachings of theologians, that is to say theologians who have the approbation of the Roman Pontiffs, and do not interpret Councils based upon private opinion. Again, despite your personal insults I am willing to listen as you obviously care a great deal about this. And I equally concede that I made a silly mistake in using a grammatical term incorrectly. It was late and I was tired. I readily admit that in Latin prepositions determine relationship between a noun and another word or phrase, and obviously cannot be "governed" by a noun. That's first year Latin stuff, and I made a boo boo. It happens to us all, and I am not so vain as to refuse to admit it. If it makes you feel better I did feel a right idiot myself, especially as I adore the Latin language and read it daily. Once I and another Catholic Latinist were in St Peter's and we both blacked out on the word "fanum" inscribed therein, and a Protestant corrected us. Now that was a true moment of utter mortificatio!But that's how God keeps us humble.

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:30 pm    Post subject:
CSGibson, I was edified by your post. I just hope that one day I can be half the Catholic that you are Michael Wilson are.

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:42 pm    Post subject:
This particular thread deserves its own place of honor not only for its manifold erudition but, even more so, for the exemplary moments of authentic virtue it has displayed. Well and truly done, gentlemen. Compliments all around. _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:45 pm    Post subject:
And no, Michael, I will not loan to you, nor to CS, my copy of Strunk & White. This, inasmuch as it is a treasured Christmas gift from my daughter and, even more important, it is already helping me, day by day, become a gooder and gooder writer! _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote: The implicit desire in question is not to be saved, since a person with faith, hope and charity will desire that explicitly (if they are above the age of reason). I agree, "implicit desire in question is not to be saved.” “Implicit desire”, as I have said before cannot have a known object. The 1949 Holy Office Letter cites as the only necessary and sufficient article of “supernatural faith” for salvation the ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes.’ How is it possible for this to produce an explicit “supernatural hope” of salvation? And since the article of “supernatural faith” can be known by natural reason, how is it possible to know if it is “supernatural” either subjectively or objectively? What are the criteria such a distinction can be known? What is the material cause of salvation proposed in the 1949 Holy Office Letter? Can you cite references from scripture, accepted tradition, Magisterial documents, Church Fathers, writings of doctors of the Church and saints that support the doctrine that the only necessary and sufficient article of faith for salvation is the belief in a ‘god who rewards and punishes,’ and the only necessary and sufficient ethic is the ‘desire to be conformed to this god’s will?’ Do you agree that the referenced clause from Mystici Corporis used in the 1949 Holy Office Letter is mistranslated from the Latin? Is it true that this “mistranslation” is the specific reference for the theological opinions expressed in the 1949 Holy Office Letter? Can you explain why you continue to use this mistranslated text? Do you understand that dogma is divine revelation? Do you believe that dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith? Do you understand that dogma is formulated as categorical propositions that can only be true or false? Do you understand that dogmas are not precepts? Do you understand the distinction between a proposition and a precept? Do you know that the definition of a heretic is one who denies at least one dogma? Do you know that to treat a dogma as a precept is a condemned error of Modernism? What authority do you place over dogma? Do you believe that dogma is irreformable? Or, do you believe that dogma contains elements of perennial truths along with historical accidental elements? Do you believe in the evolution of dogma? Do you believe that the terms used in dogmatic propositions can acquire meanings different from their original referent? What is the relationship between dogma and the 1949 Holy Office Letter? These are some of the questions that have been addressed to you during our exchanges that have never been answered. You might give them some thought. Drew

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:06 am    Post subject:

Drew wrote: Do you understand that dogma is divine revelation? Do you believe that dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith? Do you understand that dogma is formulated as categorical propositions that can only be true or false? Do you understand that dogmas are not precepts? Do you understand the distinction between a proposition and a precept? Do you know that the definition of a heretic is one who denies at least one dogma? I want to comment on dogma vs. precept because it applies to this point. EENS is a dogma, but entering the Church is a precept. I will have to think about it, but we might be able to say the former is the object of the speculative intellect, while the latter is the object of the practical intellect. There is a difference between a dogma that is simply a truth, and a dogma that also has a practical application. When we deal with a dogma that has a practical application to an individual soul, we not only have to believe the dogma, but we have to ask how the requirement is satisfied. These are two distinct questions. Regarding the dogma, we must believe there is no salvation outside the Church. But the question that logically follows is: what exactly is necessary to belong to the Church in extraordinary circumstances? The second question is the practical application of the dogma to an individual soul - how the soul enters the Church. It is not a question of true vs. false (is there salvation outside the Church or not), but rather how an individual person satisfies the precept of entering the Church. What is the very minimum that, under certain circumstances, can suffice for the person to fulfill the precept of entering the Church. This is what the Holy Office letter is dealing with. Regarding your question about supernatural faith, the Holy Office letter did not deny that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is required. Affirming one truth is not a denial of another. Therefore, by quoting Hebrews 11, the letter did not deny that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary. The purpose of the letter was not to define what must be explicitly believed to possess supernatural faith. It was written to explain how, under certain circumstances, a person can fulfil the minimum requirements for entry into the Church in order to attain salvation.

Moderators

St.Justin
†


Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2809
Location: Pensacola, Florida

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:40 pm    Post subject:
I think the good Drew needs to look up the definition of the word "ordain" and the meaning of "ordinary" and "extraordinary". I believe this should clear up his problem.

Moderators

CS Gibson
†


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 813

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:05 am    Post subject:

Just a brief comment to say that I think the whole question of Mystici Corporis is something of a red herring in that what the 1949 Letter proposes is simply the common opinion of approved theologians. It is neither new nor novel in its teaching, and long before Mysticic Corporis was written Catholic theologians were teaching exactly what is in the Letter. When talking about "a God" theologians don't mean Osiris or Marduk, they mean very explicitly the One God and "implicit desire" refers to doing the will of Almighty God and what is implicitly desired is to be conformed to His will and to be baptized and enter His Church. If through invincible ignorance someone does not know the Catholic Church they can still be saved by adhering to the moral law and doing God's will. Now this in itself means that God must first have given them the grace to do so. God is not limited and is absolutely free to dispense His grace as He chooses. The problem with Fr Feeney's position is that he limits the divine will. Grace by definition is utterly gratuitous and God is utterly free to grant His graces, sine praevisa merita. In this the mystery of predestination is contained, and to say that someone, though not a member of the visible Church could not be saved by divine grace is to limit God.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:34 am    Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote: Just a brief comment to say that I think the whole question of Mystici Corporis is something of a red herring in that what the 1949 Letter proposes is simply the common opinion of approved theologians. It is neither new nor novel in its teaching, and long before Mysticic Corporis was written Catholic theologians were teaching exactly what is in the Letter. When talking about "a God" theologians don't mean Osiris or Marduk, they mean very explicitly the One God and "implicit desire" refers to doing the will of Almighty God and what is implicitly desired is to be conformed to His will and to be baptized and enter His Church. If through invincible ignorance someone does not know the Catholic Church they can still be saved by adhering to the moral law and doing God's will. Now this in itself means that God must first have given them the grace to do so. God is not limited and is absolutely free to dispense His grace as He chooses. The problem with Fr Feeney's position is that he limits the divine will. Grace by definition is utterly gratuitous and God is utterly free to grant His graces, sine praevisa merita. In this the mystery of predestination is contained, and to say that someone, though not a member of the visible Church could not be saved by divine grace is to limit God. 1. Fr. Fenton dates the teaching of the “salvation by implicit desire” to the encyclical Mystici Corporis. He dates the teaching of “salvation by explicit desire” to the time of St. Robert Bellarmine. Regarding Mystici Corporis, Fr. Fenton said: Fr. Joseph Fenton wrote: "The Holy Office letter is by far the most complete authoritative statement on and explanation of the Church’s necessity for salvation yet issued by the Holy See. A tremendous number of documents in the past have asserted the dogma (EENS). The encyclical Mystici Corporis showed clearly that the explanation of this teaching involved a recognition of the fact that salvation is possible for men “who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire.” Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis did not say, “who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire.” He said, “who may be ordained toward the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire.” Perhaps the mistranslation is the reason the document was published in English by the diocese of Boston rather than by the Holy Office and consequently, never entered into the AAS. “A ‘Red Herring’” is defined as, “a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.” The “issue” is the teaching of “salvation by implicit desire” that the 1949 Holy Office Letter, within its text, and as its only authority, directly cites the mistranslated clause from the Mystici Corporis to support its teaching. I do not understand how it is possible to call discussing this authoritative reference a "red herring.” It is a central fact determining the “issue.” 2. Exactly what “god” the theologians in the Holy Office were referring to is unknown. They did not say. They did not even say if this “god” is a personal god. The previous quotes of Bishop Fellay, Archbishop Lefebvre, and Pope John Paul II as well, state specifically that Hindus and Buddhists could be saved by being good Hindus and good Buddhists. The “gods” of the Hindus and Buddhists are not personal gods. If the theologians of the Holy Office meant anything “explicitly” they would have said “explicitly” what they meant. They did not. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics Bishop Fellay wrote: And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven. Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006 3. If the Holy Office theologiains meant, “what is implicitly desired is to be conformed to His will and to be baptized and enter His Church,” it is not what they said. There is no mention of the sacrament of baptism in the document, either the actual sacrament or anything about “baptism of desire” either explicitly or implicitly. The ends of “implicit desire” are unknown both subjectively and objectively. The Holy Office probably did not say anything about these “ends” because there is not a lot to say about the unknowable. 4. The entire economy of salvation is the work of God. What God has revealed about this work is all that is known concerning it. If God saves anyone outside the economy that He has revealed it is unknown and unknowable. Fr. Feeney did not “limit the divine will.” On the contrary, he exalted the divine power. It is a power so omnipotent that it can save anyone within the economy that He established. Those who insist that God does not possess the power to save within the economy that He established are the only ones trying to “limit” God. Furthermore, God, as is acknowledged by all in this discussion, is not bound by his precepts, but He has bound Himself to his revealed Truth. “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.” If you do not believe that God can and will keep His promises then you have no grounds to hope for anything and this entire discussion is pointless. 5. Fr. Joseph Fenton wrote: “Now the teachings we are obliged to believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith are the truths which we know as the dogmas of the Catholic Church. These dogmas are truths which the apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church as statements which had been supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself. They constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching activity.” Fr. Joseph Fenton Dogmas are “truths,” not precepts. Dogmas are “teachings we are obliged to believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.” Dogmas are “truths” which the “apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church.” Dogmas are “truths” that have been “supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself.” Dogmas “constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching activity.” The denial of only one dogma makes that person a heretic. Jesus Christ, is the “way, the truth and the life.” If He has revealed something that is the "formal object of divine and Catholic Faith," it behooves all to believe it. Drew

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:54 am    Post subject:

Drew wrote: Dogmas are “truths,” not precepts. Dogmas are “teachings we are obliged to believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.” Dogmas are “truths” which the “apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church.” Dogmas are “truths” that have been “supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself.” Dogmas “constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching activity.” The denial of only one dogma makes that person a heretic. Jesus Christ, is the “way, the truth and the life.” If He has revealed something that is the "formal object of divine and Catholic Faith," it behooves all to believe it. Drew Drew, Here's a dogma: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff". If you deny that dogma, you are a heretic. Now, is it your position that everyone who dies during an interregnum is lost? After all, during the interregnum there is no pope; therefore, it is not possibly for a person to be subject a pope when one does not exist. Yet the dogma clearly states that it is "absolutely necessary" that a person be subject to the Pope to be saved. If it is your position that salvation is possible during an interregnum, when there is no pope to be subject to, how do you reconcile that belief with the dogma?

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:03 pm    Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote: Drew quoting Fr. Joseph Fenton wrote: Dogmas are “truths,” not precepts. Dogmas are “teachings we are obliged to believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.” Dogmas are “truths” which the “apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church.” Dogmas are “truths” that have been “supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself.” Dogmas “constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching activity.” The denial of only one dogma makes that person a heretic. Jesus Christ, is the “way, the truth and the life.” If He has revealed something that is the "formal object of divine and Catholic Faith," it behooves all to believe it. Drew Drew, Here's a dogma: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff". If you deny that dogma, you are a heretic. Now, is it your position that everyone who dies during an interregnum is lost? After all, during the interregnum there is no pope; therefore, it is not possibly for a person to be subject a pope when one does not exist. Yet the dogma clearly states that it is "absolutely necessary" that a person be subject to the Pope to be saved. If it is your position that salvation is possible during an interregnum, when there is no pope to be subject to, how do you reconcile that belief with the dogma? “To be subject to the Roman Pontiff” does not cease with the death of the particular Pontiff. For example, the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary declared by Pope Pius XII did not cease to bind the consciences of his subjects after his death. You are reading something into the dogma that is not there, that is, "to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" ceases with the death of a particular pontiff. You have no authority to take from or add to any dogma. Drew

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject:

Drew wrote: Pax Vobiscum wrote: Drew quoting Fr. Joseph Fenton wrote: Dogmas are “truths,” not precepts. Dogmas are “teachings we are obliged to believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.” Dogmas are “truths” which the “apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church.” Dogmas are “truths” that have been “supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself.” Dogmas “constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching activity.” The denial of only one dogma makes that person a heretic. Jesus Christ, is the “way, the truth and the life.” If He has revealed something that is the "formal object of divine and Catholic Faith," it behooves all to believe it. Drew Drew, Here's a dogma: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff". If you deny that dogma, you are a heretic. Now, is it your position that everyone who dies during an interregnum is lost? After all, during the interregnum there is no pope; therefore, it is not possibly for a person to be subject a pope when one does not exist. Yet the dogma clearly states that it is "absolutely necessary" that a person be subject to the Pope to be saved. If it is your position that salvation is possible during an interregnum, when there is no pope to be subject to, how do you reconcile that belief with the dogma? “To be subject to the Roman Pontiff” does not cease with the death of the particular Pontiff. For example, the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary declared by Pope Pius XII did not cease to bind the consciences of his subjects after his death. You are reading something into the dogma that is not there, that is, "to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" ceases with the death of a particular pontiff. You have no authority to take from or add to any dogma. Drew I think it is you who are reading something into the dogma that is not there. The dogma does not say we must continue to accept dogmatic teachings of previous popes. That is a different issue. What it says is that it is absolutely necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to obtain salvation. This is referring to the subjection to the current pope, not simply to the teachings of previous popes. It seems to me that you are trying to wiggle your way out of accepting what the dogma clearly teaches. And as a Feeneyite, you should realize that turning to approved theologians to see how they "interpreted" a dogma is not permitted. Neither is it permitted to add to or take away from what is written by claiming that being subject to the Roman Pontiff actually means accepting teachings of previous popes. We must accept the dogma as it is written, lest we be guilty of denying a teaching that must be accepted with divine and Catholic faith. Do you accept it as it is written or not? Or maybe you are limiting God. After all, if someone is going to be saved, surely God could have them live until the next pope is elected so that the dogma was not violated, right? After all, as you mentioned above, "God is not bound by His precepts, but he has bound Himself to His word: heaven and earth shall not pass away, etc." Is it your position that God is unable to preserve the life of the predestined throughout an interregnums so that the dogma is not violated? Isn't that similar to what Fr. Feeney said about a person who obtained the state of grace before Baptism? Didn't he teach that God, who can do all things, would not allow such a person to die before they received the sacrament and character? Why not use the same reasoning with this dogma, rather than re-interpreting it to mean what it does not say?

Moderators

St.Justin
†


Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2809
Location: Pensacola, Florida

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:25 pm    Post subject:
I wanted to jump all over Drew's post but I waited for you to have the honour. I can't believe he responded like he did. He totally refuted all of his previous post unless he thinks he is the only one who can interpret solemnly defined Dogmas. All of the domas must be taken literally except this one which he will clarify so we can clearly understand what it is saying.

Moderators

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 100

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:23 pm    Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote: Drew wrote: Pax Vobiscum wrote: Drew quoting Fr. Joseph Fenton wrote: Dogmas are “truths,” not precepts. Dogmas are “teachings we are obliged to believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.” Dogmas are “truths” which the “apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church.” Dogmas are “truths” that have been “supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself.” Dogmas “constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching activity.” The denial of only one dogma makes that person a heretic. Jesus Christ, is the “way, the truth and the life.” If He has revealed something that is the "formal object of divine and Catholic Faith," it behooves all to believe it. Drew Drew, Here's a dogma: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff". If you deny that dogma, you are a heretic. Now, is it your position that everyone who dies during an interregnum is lost? After all, during the interregnum there is no pope; therefore, it is not possibly for a person to be subject a pope when one does not exist. Yet the dogma clearly states that it is "absolutely necessary" that a person be subject to the Pope to be saved. If it is your position that salvation is possible during an interregnum, when there is no pope to be subject to, how do you reconcile that belief with the dogma? “To be subject to the Roman Pontiff” does not cease with the death of the particular Pontiff. For example, the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary declared by Pope Pius XII did not cease to bind the consciences of his subjects after his death. You are reading something into the dogma that is not there, that is, "to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" ceases with the death of a particular pontiff. You have no authority to take from or add to any dogma. Drew I think it is you who are reading something into the dogma that is not there. The dogma does not say we must continue to accept dogmatic teachings of previous popes. That is a different issue. What it says is that it is absolutely necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to obtain salvation. This is referring to the subjection to the current pope, not simply to the teachings of previous popes. It seems to me that you are trying to wiggle your way out of accepting what the dogma clearly teaches. And as a Feeneyite, you should realize that turning to approved theologians to see how they "interpreted" a dogma is not permitted. Neither is it permitted to add to or take away from what is written by claiming that being subject to the Roman Pontiff actually means accepting teachings of previous popes. We must accept the dogma as it is written, lest we be guilty of denying a teaching that must be accepted with divine and Catholic faith. Do you accept it as it is written or not? Or maybe you are limiting God. After all, if someone is going to be saved, surely God could have them live until the next pope is elected so that the dogma was not violated, right? After all, as you mentioned above, "God is not bound by His precepts, but he has bound Himself to His word: heaven and earth shall not pass away, etc." Is it your position that God is unable to preserve the life of the predestined throughout an interregnums so that the dogma is not violated? Isn't that similar to what Fr. Feeney said about a person who obtained the state of grace before Baptism? Didn't he teach that God, who can do all things, would not allow such a person to die before they received the sacrament and character? Why not use the same reasoning with this dogma, rather than re-interpreting it to mean what it does not say? I have read nothing into the dogma beyond what it says. You claim that “the dogma clearly teaches…..to be subject to the Roman Pontiff…..is referring to the subjection to the current pope,” The dogma says nothing about the “current pope” or any particular pope for that matter. It does not even distinguish between the person of the Roman Pontiff and the office of the Roman Pontiff. The word, “subject” is not a noun. It is a verb. The verb, “subject” means, “to submit to the authority of.” It is by definition that this “authority” is an attribute of the office and only an accident of the person. All the dogma says is that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is you who have read into the dogma something that is not there. You have made a presumption that when the current pope dies, those who were subject to his proper exercise of authority cease to be subject to his authority after his death. Where in the dogma does it say anything of the sort? You have further erred by treating the dogma as a precept, and not as a categorical proposition of divinely revealed truth as all Catholics must. You have implied that when the current pope dies, it is then impossible to be his “subject” (as a noun), therefore, the dogma, as a “precept” would not bind. That is a condemned error of Modernism. You have further erred by your treatment of the word “subject.” The word “subject” in this dogma is a verb added to the present infinitive, “to be.” As I previously said, the verb, “subject” means, “to submit to the authority of.” There is nothing in the dogma that says or implies that the death of a Pontiff unbinds whatever the Pontiff bound, or that the faithful are no longer “to be subject” to his "authority" as properly exercised. But more importantly, the verb “subject” is part of the infinitive phrase, “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Infinitive phrases, like other verbals, function as a single part of speech, but, unlike other verbals, the infinitive can take a subject and an object. The infinitive phrase in this case is the subject of the sentence as an appositive with the pronoun, “it.” The entire infinitive phrase is functioning as a noun. A noun is the name of a person, place, animal, thing, or idea. In this case, the infinitive phrase, “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is an idea and this idea exists in the person, not the Roman Pontiff. The death of a particular Roman Pontiff does not change the idea that exists in the person any more than it would change any other article of Faith that a Catholic professes. Are you a Nominalist? In my example, I said nothing about “previous popes” because the dogma says nothing about “previous popes.” All I said is that when Pope Pius XII died, those who were “subject to his authority” did not cease to be “subject to his authority” after his death because that “authority” did not die with him. Your claim that, “it is not possible for a person to be subject to a pope when one does not exist” could be true if the word "subject" were a noun but that is not the case in this dogma. This is nothing but your "private belief" and it has nothing to do with the dogma. This "private belief" is really, well, just… mindless. The example I cited should be enough to put to rest your “private belief.” Dogma closes the door to theological speculation on divinely revealed truth. For those of good will, the tools for understanding dogma are proper definition of terms and correct grammar. Neither seems to be your forte. A child with common sense would have no problem understanding and believing this article of divine and Catholic faith. It has taken on your part a studied effort to corrupt its meaning. If you paid for training in theology I would ask for your money back. Your time would have been better spent reviewing a good text on the Trivium. Drew

Moderators

gpmtrad
†


Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 9568

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:34 pm    Post subject:

Drew, two words of advice ( not ignored by canonized Saints ) Honey Vinegar Please bear in mind that your correspondents are fine, fine Catholics who indeed have studied and continue to study Catholic doctrine, Catholic history and Catholic theological manuals with every bit as much intensity as you most obviously do, as well. The occasional gratuitous thumping may just be a one-off now and again among any of us. However, when it becomes a persistent pattern, well.... _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

Moderators

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 532

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:57 am    Post subject:

Drew wrote: You have made a presumption that when the current pope dies, those who were subject to his proper exercise of authority cease to be subject to his authority after his death. Where in the dogma does it say anything of the sort? You have further erred by treating the dogma as a precept, and not as a categorical proposition of divinely revealed truth ... You have further erred by your treatment of the word “subject.” The word “subject” in this dogma is a verb added to the present infinitive, “to be.” As I previously said, the verb, “subject” means, “to submit to the authority of.” There is nothing in the dogma that says or implies that the death of a Pontiff unbinds whatever the Pontiff bound, or that the faithful are no longer “to be subject” to his "authority" as properly exercised….. In my example, I said nothing about “previous popes” because the dogma says nothing about “previous popes.” All I said is that when Pope Pius XII died, those who were “subject to his authority” did not cease to be “subject to his authority” after his death because that “authority” did not die with him. The pope’s authority ends at his death. The destruction of the pope’s fisherman’s ring symbolizes the end of his authority. Look it up. Any dogmas defined by popes still bind after their death, but their personal authority ends when they die. And you are twisting the clear words of the dogma to mean what they do not say. The dogma does not teach that we must continue to accept authoritative teachings of dead popes; it says we must be subject (verb) to the Roman Pontiff (singular). And it is also interesting to see you are discussing the dogma as if it is a precept (submission to what dead popes taught), which is something you accuse others of doing. Why are you discussing the dogma as a precept? If you interpret “subject (verb) to the Roman Pontiff (singular)” to mean acceptance of the teachings of dead popes (plural), you need to take some basic courses in grammar.

Go to Page 1, 2, 3

BACK

HOME