Author Topic: Possible strict-EENS chapel (Read 238800 times)

Angelus · « **Reply #20 on:** December 08, 2025, 08:43:39 PM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on December 08, 2025, 08:17:27 PM

There are plenty of replies to your comments on the thread below and on this same subject by Drew.
Maybe others will benefit from it.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/

Sorry, but your husband is wrong about the Pope not being the Proximate Rule of Faith. By replacing the "living Magisterium" (the role played by the Pope) with static Dogma, your husband falls into the error of the Old Catholics.

On the Cathinfo page you linked to, your husband said the following:

"Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority."

On Magisterium.com (a mainstream Catholic AI good for Catholic 101 stuff like this) the question was asked,

"Is the Pope the proximate rule of faith?"

The concept of the "rule of faith" in Catholic theology refers to the authoritative standard by which the deposit of faith—divinely revealed truths contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition—is known, interpreted, and proposed to the faithful. The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition themselves, while the proximate rule is the living Magisterium of the Church, which authentically interprets and guards these sources under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.¹ Within this framework, the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter and the visible head of the Church, holds a unique and supreme role as the proximate rule of faith, particularly in resolving doctrinal questions and defining truths for the universal Church. This authority is not absolute in a personal sense but derives from his office, exercised either extraordinarily (ex cathedra) or ordinarily, ensuring unity and fidelity to the apostolic faith.² ³ ⁴
The Pope's Primacy in Teaching Authority

The Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff possesses full, supreme, and universal power over the Church, jure divino (by divine right), as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of the entire flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17).⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ This includes the responsibility to "feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," making him the principal teacher of all Christians.⁵ As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, the Pope's authority extends to issuing authoritative judgments on matters of faith "sententialiter determinare" (decisively), so that they may be held by the whole Church with "unshaken faith."² This role ensures there is "but one faith of the whole Church" (1 Cor 1:10), preventing schisms by resolving disputes that arise.² ⁴

St. Robert Bellarmine further clarifies that the Pope, as the Pastor and universal Teacher of the Church, can define matters of faith even without a council, for he "cannot err when he teaches ex cathedra; otherwise the whole Church would err."³This underscores the Pope's position as the proximate norm for the faith, where his definitive teachings bind the consciences of the faithful irrevocably, preserving the purity of the Gospel.⁹ ¹⁰

Distinctions in Magisterial Authority

Not every papal statement constitutes the proximate rule of faith; the Church distinguishes between levels of authority. Infallible teachings—whether through solemn definitions (extraordinary Magisterium) or the ordinary and universal Magisterium—form the primary and secondary objects of infallibility and demand the full assent of faith (fides divina or fides ecclesiastica).¹ The Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements, as defined by Vatican I, meet this criterion, protecting revealed truths from error.¹¹ Even non-infallible teachings in the ordinary Magisterium require religious submission of intellect and will, as they contribute to the Church's doctrinal development and safeguard against harm to faith and morals.¹ ¹² ¹³

For instance, Pope Leo XIII affirms that "questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church," and his sentence "must consequently be accepted without wavering."⁴ This primacy is echoed in Vatican I's declaration that the Pope is the "supreme judge of the faithful" in ecclesiastical matters, with no higher authority, such as an ecuмenical council, to which one may appeal.¹⁴ Historical errors, like the Gallican articles suggesting papal judgments need the Church's consent to be unalterable, have been condemned as void.¹⁵

Implications for the Faithful

The Pope's role as proximate rule of faith means Catholics are bound to adhere to his authoritative teachings on doctrine, morals, and governance, fostering communion and obedience.⁶ This is not a diminishment of the bishops' role—who, with the Pope, form the college of authentic teachers—but a recognition of Petrine primacy, which "presides in love" over the universal Church.¹¹ ⁸ As Pope Pius XII taught, this obedience extends to all pastors and faithful, ensuring "one flock under one supreme shepherd."⁶ In practice, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith assists the Pope in promoting and safeguarding this integrity, examining potential errors and providing rebuttals.¹⁶ ⁹ ¹⁰

In summary, yes, the Pope is the proximate rule of faith in his magisterial office, serving as the divinely appointed guardian and interpreter of the depositum fidei for the entire Church. This ensures doctrinal unity amid contemporary challenges, always in service to the truth revealed by Christ.¹⁷

For deeper exploration, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 85-100) outlines the Magisterium's role comprehensively.

[1] D'Costa's Hermeneutics page3
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas and the Origins of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility page42
[3] Controversies of the Christian Faith (Disputationes de Controversiis) page453
[4] Sapientiae Christianae 23
[5] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059
[6] Ad Apostolorum principis 46
[7] Evangelii Nuntiandi 67
[8] Satis Cognitum 13
[9] Regulations for Doctrinal Examination - Ratio Agendi 1
[10] To promote and safeguard the faith
[11] Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church: Christ – Our Pascha 291
[12] Falliable Teachings and the Assistance of the Holy Spirit Reflections on the Ordinary Magisterium in Connection with the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian page21
[13] CCC 2050
[14] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3063
[15] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 2284
[16] Praedicate Evangelium Art. 69
[17] 10 December 2000: Jubilee of Catechists - Homily 3

And then a follow up question was asked,

Does the error of the Old Catholics attempt to replace the Pope as the proximate rule of faith with static dogma?

Yes, the error of the Old Catholics can be understood as an attempt to replace the Pope's role as the proximate rule of faith—embodied in his living magisterial authority to interpret and guard the deposit of faith—with a static conception of dogma limited to pre-Vatican I teachings, which they regard as the unalterable and exhaustive expression of the "ancient Catholic faith." This position undermines the dynamic, Spirit-guided development of doctrine under Petrine primacy, reducing the Church's teaching authority to a fixed historical corpus without the Pope's supreme interpretive function.¹ ²
Historical Context of the Old Catholic Schism

The Old Catholics emerged in the late 19th century as a direct response to the First Vatican Council's definition of papal infallibility (1870), which they denounced as an "innovation contrary to the traditional faith of the Church."¹ Led by figures like Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger and Johann Friedrich von Schulte, they issued declarations rejecting the dogma and organized separate communities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and elsewhere, convening congresses (e.g., Munich, 1871) to affirm adherence to what they called the "ancient Catholic faith" while repudiating "new dogmas."¹ ³They elected their own bishops, such as Joseph Hubert Reinkens in 1873, and sought state recognition in places like Prussia, Baden, and Hesse, framing themselves as the true preservers of Catholicism against "Ultramontanism"—a term they used pejoratively for the enhanced role of the Roman Pontiff.¹

In their synodal constitutions and resolutions, the Old Catholics emphasized a return to the "constitutions of the ancient Church," rejecting not only infallibility but also elements like mandatory confession, clerical celibacy, and the Roman liturgy in favor of local adaptations.¹ ³ Pope Pius IX condemned this in Etsi Multa (1873), accusing them of "attack[ing] and pervert[ing] the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff" and asserting that the Pope and bishops had "fallen into heresy" by approving Vatican I.² They boldly claimed the Church's visible head and hierarchy had "erred," necessitating a "restoration" of a "legitimate episcopacy" outside Roman communion, which Pius IX described as entering "not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber."²

Replacement of Proximate Rule with Static Dogma

In Catholic theology, the proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium—the Church's authentic teaching office, headed by the Pope—which interprets Scripture and Tradition infallibly when exercising its full authority, ensuring doctrinal unity and development "in the same sense and the same meaning" (eodem sensu eademque sententia).⁴ ⁵ The Old Catholics' error inverts this by subordinating the Magisterium to a static set of dogmas they deem "harmonious with the actual consciousness of the Church," excluding any post-1870 developments as invalid innovations.¹ This effectively elevates a selective, historical corpus of teachings—such as those from the early councils—above the Pope's ongoing role as the "supreme judge" and "universal teacher," who resolves faith disputes with "unshaken faith" binding the whole Church.⁶ ⁷ ⁸

By denying papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church in its hierarchical teaching, the Old Catholics imply that the deposit of faith is fully captured in "static" dogmas without need for the Pope's proximate guidance.² They reject the idea that the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, holds "full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," instead promoting a more democratic or synodal model where laity and local bishops hold interpretive primacy.⁹ ² This mirrors condemned errors like Gallicanism, which limited papal authority to mere execution of conciliar decisions, but goes further by schismatically separating to enforce their vision.⁴ As a result, their communities devolved toward liberal reforms, ecuмenical alliances with Protestants and Jansenists, and eventual rationalism, losing any claim to Catholic orthodoxy.¹ ³

Broader Theological Implications

This error not only fractures ecclesial unity but also contradicts the Church's teaching that dogmas are not isolated artifacts but living truths integrated within the "hierarchy of truths" and the Church's full life of worship and doctrine.⁵The Old Catholics' approach risks a "legal positivism" that freezes revelation, ignoring the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium for ongoing clarification amid new contexts.¹⁰ In contrast, Vatican I affirmed the Pope's primacy as essential for the Church's stability, ensuring that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against it.⁸ ² Their persistent small numbers and doctrinal drifts today (e.g., ordination of women, same-sex blessings in some branches) illustrate the instability of bypassing Petrine authority.¹

In conclusion, the Old Catholics' rejection of papal infallibility indeed seeks to supplant the Pope's dynamic role as proximate rule of faith with a static, selective dogma, leading to schism and a diminished understanding of the Church's indefectible teaching mission. This remains a cautionary example of how denying Petrine primacy fragments the faith.²

[1] Catholic Encyclopedia Old Catholics
[2] Etsi Multa
[3] Catholic Encyclopedia Schism
[4] Catholic Encyclopedia Dogma
[5] The Interpretation of Dogma B.III.3
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia Error
[7] Infideles et Philosophi: Re-Reading ST II-II, q. 2, a. 2, ad 3 page13
[8] The Bishop of Rome 3.134
[9] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059
[10] In the Name of Jesus Christ: A Few Historical Perspectives on the Functioning of Authority in Biblical Interpretation page25

WorldsAway · « **Reply #21 on:** December 08, 2025, 08:49:11 PM »

Note: I do not necessarily take issue with +Sanborn, or anyone else for that matter, holding a "traditional" view of BOD/BOB.

I do take issue with +Sanborn teaching that non-Catholics can be saved (heresy), and imposing his opinion of BOD on the laity as the infallible teaching of the Church. I'm no theologian, but I'd bet teaching something that is not the infallible teaching of the Church as Her infallible teaching is, at least, quasi-heretical

WorldsAway · « **Reply #22 on:** December 08, 2025, 09:10:06 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on December 08, 2025, 08:55:24 PM

A lot of that all around wouldn't you say?

I mean, what SPECIFICALLY about RCI/+Sanborn do you find uniquely "heretical" and "sectarian"?

Specifically, uniquely? Not much. Their forbiddance of Una cuм masses is probably the only unique thing about them, but SGG might do that too. Not sure. I know the SSPV refuses the sacraments to those who do not hold their opinion on BOD, but "permits" Una cuм attendance. I respect the wishes of all of these groups, they would not hold me to be "in communion" with them anyways. Hopefully they come around to the Truth

WorldsAway · « **Reply #23 on:** December 08, 2025, 09:23:59 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on December 08, 2025, 08:58:33 PM

When you say "traditional" do you mean "explicit desire"?

vs.

What +Sanborn is teaching - implicit desire?

I think St. Alphonsus taught it was de fide, others say it is certain, others yet, say it is more common. Some say explicit only, others say implicit is ok too. It really is beyond the keen of anyone to sort out all those theological opinions and then latch onto one as if it was a dogma.

Traditional as in explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. Explicit or implicit desire of Baptism after that, opinions vary..

+Sanborn says:

Quote

The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ.
If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error

And elsewhere:

Quote

And if someone is saved who is in those false religions, it has nothing to do with that false religion. It has to do with the grace of God and their ignorance.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #24 on:** December 08, 2025, 10:59:26 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on December 08, 2025, 09:51:21 PM

Well, from what I can tell, it was a pretty "normal" pre-Vatican II position.

Even +Lefebvre said in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics",

"It is true that one can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by that religion. One can be saved in it despite that religion, and by the Catholic religion, to which anyone who is saved belongs, even if he does not know it. He is saved by the grace of God which is given to him in view of his good faith, of his fidelity to the natural law and to his conscience, if he is in invincible ignorance of the true religion.”

Some good points about the development of opinions here:
https://archive.org/details/necessityofchurc0000king

That's just the problem. Even the Holy Office said in the 1700s that explicit faith in the Incarnation and Trinity is required before someone is baptised (for age of reason). And even in danger of death they must first profess these things or they are not to be baptised.

Even Archbishop Lefebvre was a material heretic, because his statement clearly denies the dogma EENS. He incorrectly believed the Church taught it and modern trads follow his error. The clergy even in the 1800s/1900s were weak in faith, if not then V2 wouldn't have happened.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Possible strict-EENS chapel (Read 238800 times)

Angelus

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel

WorldsAway

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel

WorldsAway

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel

WorldsAway

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel

AnthonyPadua

Re: Possible strict-EENS chapel