Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on May 03, 2011, 08:57:36 AM
-
Commentary other than "See, we have no Pope!" is welcome...
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-about-this-bishop.html
How about this bishop?
From the blog PrayTell, citing an article published by Der Sonntag on Black Saturday of this year:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wXtJN6NMNsE/Tb9OQuA9hqI/AAAAAAAAAGY/lAEWjebd184/s1600/Markus%2BBuchel.jpg)
These Easter Sunday words of a Swiss Catholic bishop suggest that the topic of women’s ordination won’t be going away anytime soon.
Markus Büchel calls for far-reaching reforms in the Catholic Church. The bishop of the diocese of St. Gallen [St. Gall] spoke out openly for women’s ordination. “We must search for steps that lead there,” he said. “I could imagine that women’s diaconate could be such a step.”
One has not been permitted to discuss women’s ordination for a good while. “We can’t afford this anymore.” Regarding priesthood for women, Büchel said, “We can pray that the Holy Spirit enables us to read the signs of the times.”
He made this explosive statement in the St. Galler Pfarreiblatt [St. Gall Parish Paper]. Sabine Rüthemann, media spokesperson for the diocese, confirmed: “The interview is authorized. What Bishop Büchel said is what he means.”
These are very far-reaching statements for a bishop. They signal a Catholic breaking of taboos. In canon law every ordained ministry is limited to men.
-
Benedict should excommunicate him. But I gaurantee you he won't.
-
Commentary other than "See, we have no Pope!" is welcome...
I had to give you a "Dislike" on this post only for the gratuitous comment you made above. The comments by this bishop of the Conciliar church does not directly or indirectly indicate whether the See of Peter is filled. In fact, it does not excommunicate the bishop either.
If he declares that, as a matter of principle, woman can be ordained then he is a heretic and loses his office automatically. If he ordains a woman, he loses his office automatically. As long as he simply calls for "searching" for a way to do the impossible, he is a very, very bad bishop who is corrupting the faith of his flock (i.e., a wolf in sheep's clothing") but he could still be a bishop.
Of course, I say this only because I don't know anything about his ordination, his consecration, under what rite he was ordained or consecrated, if the bishops who ordained or consecrated him were true bishops, or if he has actually taught heresy prior to this interview.
(But, if he were my bishop, I would not accept him as a true bishop until he demonstrate his fidelity to the Church, which he does not do in this interview. The Crisis in the Church is such that the burden of proof now lies with the individual cleric demonstrating himself to be Catholic rather than critics demonstrating that he is not.)
-
If he declares that, as a matter of principle, woman can be ordained then he is a heretic and loses his office automatically.
The bishop of the diocese of St. Gallen [St. Gall] spoke out openly for women’s ordination. “We must search for steps that lead there,” he said. “I could imagine that women’s diaconate could be such a step.”
How could one possibly call for steps that lead to what one believes is an impossibility? Obviously, Bishop Buchel believes that it is theologically possible for women to be ordained or else it would be madness for him to propose canonical steps leading there.
Therefore, under your own logic, you must conclude this bishop is a heretic and has lost his office automatically. Of course, this is absurd. At the rate and ease with which certain Sedes privately judge clerics to have lost their offices, Lord knows who is and is not a true priest, bishop, or pope.
Thankfully, to guard us from this insanity, God left these decisions to the Church and not joe-sede. This bishop is still a true bishop. He is simply a bishop in serious error or delusion who, in a sane time, would be disciplined immediately by the pope in some fashion. Until he is, he remains a bishop being currently allowed by the Chief Shepherd, to poison his flock. Thus this goes (once again) to the crisis of almost all ecclesiastical discipline in the post-conciliar period.
-
Commentary other than "See, we have no Pope!" is welcome...
I had to give you a "Dislike" on this post only for the gratuitous comment you made above.
I appreciate the explanation, but if you haven't yet noticed from my "reputation" score, I couldn't care less! :laugh1:
-
How could one possibly call for steps that lead to what one believes is an impossibility?
As a true bishop of the Catholic Church, Bishop Williamson, often says, it could just because he's sick in the head.
Obviously, Bishop Buchel believes that it is theologically possible for women to be ordained or else it would be madness for him to propose canonical steps leading there.
No. It isn't obvious at all. He is calling for more theological study on the matter. He hasn't made any heretical declaration here, though I'm willing to bet that he probably has in the past.
Saint Thomas More was the prime example of what I am talking about. In the play, A Man for All Seasons, Master Cromwell tells Saint Thomas that everyone knows his position on the marriage. The saint replies, "The world must construe according to its wits. This Court must construe according to the law." And what was the law? Silence gives consent.
In this particular narrow issue--this interview as reported and no other evidence--the bishop is proposing that the theological issues surrounding women's ordination be investigated. Clearly, he hopes that such an investigation by the Catholic Church find that women's ordination is possible. He declares that! But his hope is not a manifest heresy, though, I daresay, this hope would be a valid reason for the Catholic Church to investigate him for heresy and, given the state of the bishoprics today, the investigation would likely find whole storehouses full of heresy.
-
Until he is, he remains a bishop being currently allowed by the Chief Shepherd, to poison his flock.
Well, that is fitting since the 'Chief Shepherd' poisons the flock, too.
-
How could one possibly call for steps that lead to what one believes is an impossibility?
Obviously, Bishop Buchel believes that it is theologically possible for women to be ordained or else it would be madness for him to propose canonical steps leading there.
No. It isn't obvious at all. He is calling for more theological study on the matter. He hasn't made any heretical declaration here, though I'm willing to bet that he probably has in the past.
Where does he call for "more theological study" on the matter? This statement is purely of your own making and not supported by the text. The bishop is calling for concrete steps leading to making womenpriests a reality such as allowing a female deaconite. If one wants to call for "more theological study" on something one usually says something like, "I hereby call for more theological study on the issue", not "I hereby suggest a concrete step we can take towards make women's ordination a reality". This implies one thinks it is already a possibility, otherwise why bother.
-
Until he is, he remains a bishop being currently allowed by the Chief Shepherd, to poison his flock.
Well, that is fitting since the 'Chief Shepherd' poisons the flock, too.
Really? When has BXVI publicly called for women's ordination or even admitted it is a posibility?
To the contrary he just denied the possibility of womenpriests again in his latest book.
-
Not only that, but not too long ago he excommunicated a group of naive women who "ordained" themselves. Benedict doesn't think women should be priests. But I'm worried that if someone such as Cardinal Bertone or Mahony were to get elected as Pope, they may call for women priests.
-
It becomes clear Stevus would tolerate any and all liberal heresies before becoming a sede.
It seems the SSPX is on the same road now.
The irony is that Stevus insults someone who claims a Bishop loses his office for manifest heresy, but Stevus does not submit to the conciliar bishops.
-
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm
-
It becomes clear Stevus would tolerate any and all liberal heresies before becoming a sede.
It seems the SSPX is on the same road now.
The irony is that Stevus insults someone who claims a Bishop loses his office for manifest heresy, but Stevus does not submit to the conciliar bishops.
So if you don't privately depose bishops at will you are "tolerating" their heresies?
What order of a conciliar bishop with jurisdiction over me am I disobeying?
Do you not submit to your bishop? You assist at Mass at a Conciliar church with a conciliar priest, no?
-
So if you don't privately depose bishops at will you are "tolerating" their heresies?
Stevus, if you tell people not to follow such a bishop, you are effectively deposing them. Whether or not they remain valid bishops with jurisdiction becomes a matter of theological speculation, as a matter of practical fact you have deposed them. If you believe they are the Church then you are to stand with them. If you do not collaborate with them then you are in effectively denying they are the Church.
What order of a conciliar bishop with jurisdiction over me am I disobeying?
Who is your bishop? Does he approve of SSPX mass attendance? If he didn't would you obey him or not?
Do you not submit to your bishop? You assist at Mass at a Conciliar church with a conciliar priest, no?
Going to mass somewhere doesn't mean I submit to the bishop.
-
You are creating a false dichotomy. Recognizing a bishop and theoretically disobeying only sinful commands does not mean you have to deny he is a bishop. It's the old analogy of not obeying an unlawful order in the military. Doesn't mean the officer who gave the unlawful order loses his office when he does so. That is absurd and would lead to anarchy and private judgment as can be seen in the Sede community.
You are submitting to your bishop de facto because you've not done anything in rebellion against anything he's told you to do. You don't agree with your bishop on everything but you don't need to in order to be obedient.
My bishop can say one can't go to Society Masses all day long but he's overruled by the PCED.
-
You are creating a false dichotomy. Recognizing a bishop and theoretically disobeying only sinful commands does not mean you have to deny he is a bishop.
Sorry Stevus, but if all the bishops are giving sinful commands in matters of faith and morals then are leading people away from God, not to God. Where the bishop is, the Church is.
It's the old analogy of not obeying an unlawful order in the military.
And if all the commanders are doing it, and the person disobeying says they won't obey the commanders again because they're serving an illegitimate state?
Doesn't mean the officer who gave the unlawful order loses his office when he does so.
You analogy doesn't apply here, because a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.
That is absurd and would lead to anarchy and private judgment as can be seen in the Sede community.
You just keep repeating the same silly lines over and over again - refusing to accept a bishop or only obeying when one wants to obey - they both depend on private judgement and both lead to anarchy - there's no difference.
You are submitting to your bishop de facto because you've not done anything in rebellion against anything he's told you to do. You don't agree with your bishop on everything but you don't need to in order to be obedient.
I don't give any money. Nor would I. I haven't decided what to do yet, going to masses said by a pre-Vatican II ordained priest is a provisional decision.
My bishop can say one can't go to Society Masses all day long but he's overruled by the PCED.
Where the bishop is the Church is Stevus. PCED certainly doesn't tell people they should go. If you disobey your bishop you aren't authorized in the disobedience by PCED.
And if PCED said to stop going it wouldn't make any difference to you.
-
Telesphorus said:
Stevus, if you tell people not to follow such a bishop, you are effectively deposing them.
Don't fall into his semantic traps. He knows, because he has heard it ad nauseam, that sedes don't depose anyone, we merely recognize that a heretic is not a member of the Church. But because he has no intellectual honesty whatsoever, he continues to pretend like he hasn't heard this argument. It's shameless and embarrassing.
Stevus, you will not win respect from people with your cheap and specious mode of argumentation, because you clearly don't respect them. You think we're all nitwits who you can bring around to your point of view with all kinds of pettifogging and evasion, is that it?
Is this how you treat juries? Maybe it works there, but not here. You're going to need to do better than a demagogic "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit" around these parts. Everyone sees through what you're doing but you just keep bulling forward as if they don't. It's like you're in your little world of one, never really engaging with anyone else, that is the reason for the tedious effect of your posts.
-
Tele,
1.) All the bishops are not fiving sinful commands in matters of faith and morals. In fact they are commanding nothing these days.
2.) Where the bishop is there the Church is? What do you mean by this?
3.) Military analogy is simple. You have no authority to personally decide an officer who gave an unlawful order is not an officer because of it. You have the right to disobey the unlawful order. That is it. The officer is judged by the military courts or his commanding officer. Not you.
4.) Manifest heretic is a member of the Church until the Church (not you) says he is not a member. In the meantime, if he holds an office over you, you refuse to obey sinful commands and petition the Church to remove him.
5.) Refusing to obey sinful commands is judging the sinfulness of an act which is entirely different from judging whether the giver of the command loses his office. The former we do all the time and is a judgment we all must make (morality). It does not cause anarchy because it is not a judgment of persons or their office which is the job of the Church, not you or I.
I accept the bishop as bishop all the time. Disobeying a bishop is not the same as not "accepting" him as bishop. I have authority to make moral decisions for the sake of my soul because I am directly responsible for my soul, not my bishop. Thus I have authority to make moral decisions regarding any orders my bishop gives me.
6.) A bishop does not command or require you to give money, so you still would not be disobeying if you did not do so.
7.) Bishop has never said I'm forbidden to go to SSPX. If he did, he would be in direct contradiction to the PCED. The PCED has jurisdiction over matters regarding the juridical status of the Society, not the local ordinaries. It would be like my bishop forbidding me to go to any other Mass Rome has said it would not be sinful to go to.
8.) Even if the PCED said not to go, again it is a moral judgment regarding my soul. By choosing to disobey the PCED in a specific instance I'm not denying the PCED is a Pontifical Commission, nor do I deny their authority in principle. I would be choosing to disobey a specific command. That act of disobedience would be judged by moral principles. In certain cases disobedience can be justified, and so on.
You (and sedes) confuse legitimate moral judgments with judging the offices and office holders in the Church which we have no authority to do. I'm not sure how else to state this. It is really self-evident.
-
Raoul,
It is you who hide behind semantics. No you do not "depose" anyone in the sense that you go to Rome and personally force the Pope out of his office. That is obvious and is a red herring. You do, however, effectively depose him as far as yourself and other sedes are concerned. The difference is a matter of semantics. You act as if he were already deposed.
You keep depending upon a completely speculative theory of St. Bellarmine and turn it into some sort of superdogma. You then personally utilize it at your whim to claim whoever you so choose has lost their ecclesiastical office. You keep stating a "heretic is not a member of the church", but you refuse to recognize that judging people heretics is the business of the CHURCH not Raoul. You can't go around wily nily deciding clerics have lost their office because YOU personally think they uttered heresy and then say the heresy is manifest because it is manifest to YOU. This is madness and the result is chaos.
What if Joe-Sede disagrees with you on Bishop X and says that what Bishop X said was not heresy. You disagree and say that it was manifest heresy. Then Joe-Sede continues to recognize Bishop X as legit and you continue not to recognize him as a Catholic bishop at all. Who will judge which one of you is correct? Nobody, because you have each effectively made yourselves your own pope, just as clearly as each Protestant has.
-
Do you not submit to your bishop?
This statement troubles me a bit. What do you mean by "submit to your bishop"? Are you implying that we should submit to our local bishop even if he spews heresy?
And sedes don't claim themselves as Pope. That's a straw-man argument.
-
Spiritus,
Tele is trying to say I'm being disobedient to my bishop. My point is that I'm not because my bishop doesn't command me to do squat. Therefore I am not disobedient. I pointed out that Tele himself "submits" to his bishop even moreso because he assists at a diocesan Mass.
Submitting to your bishop in heretical matters is the Neo-Cath position. My position is to accept the bishop as bishop but disobey any sinful commands he may give me. He never gives me any commands so it is a moot point.
I never said sedes claim themselves to be pope. That is indeed a straw-man. Those would be conclavist anti-popes.
However, in effect, they are not only their own popes but super-popes as they decide for themselves who is and who is not a Catholic priest, bishop, pope. They have no authority whatsoever to do this. Only the Church can judge whether an officer of the Church has lost their office.
-
Ok, gotcha. Sorry for the mis-understanding.
As far as them making decisions they cannot make, I do think that judging the Pope as an anti-pope is a bit extreme (unless the Pope were to commit undeniable heresy or if he was not Catholic). Outside of that, however, we are free to judge people's actions. If a bishop says that women can be priests, I'd label that as a heresy. My real thing is that if a person commits an undeniable heresy, wouldn't that exclude him from the Catholic Church?
-
Spiritus,
Tele is trying to say I'm being disobedient to my bishop. My point is that I'm not because my bishop doesn't command me to do squat. Therefore I am not disobedient. I pointed out that Tele himself "submits" to his bishop even moreso because he assists at a diocesan Mass.
Submitting to your bishop in heretical matters is the Neo-Cath position. My position is to accept the bishop as bishop but disobey any sinful commands he may give me. He never gives me any commands so it is a moot point.
I never said sedes claim themselves to be pope. That is indeed a straw-man. Those would be conclavist anti-popes.
However, in effect, they are not only their own popes but super-popes as they decide for themselves who is and who is not a Catholic priest, bishop, pope. They have no authority whatsoever to do this. Only the Church can judge whether an officer of the Church has lost their office.
Tele is diocesan?
-
Ok, gotcha. Sorry for the mis-understanding.
As far as them making decisions they cannot make, I do think that judging the Pope as an anti-pope is a bit extreme (unless the Pope were to commit undeniable heresy or if he was not Catholic). Outside of that, however, we are free to judge people's actions. If a bishop says that women can be priests, I'd label that as a heresy. My real thing is that if a person commits an undeniable heresy, wouldn't that exclude him from the Catholic Church?
If a person simply speaks a heresy this doesn't exclude him from the Catholic Church.
-
Ok, gotcha. Sorry for the mis-understanding.
As far as them making decisions they cannot make, I do think that judging the Pope as an anti-pope is a bit extreme (unless the Pope were to commit undeniable heresy or if he was not Catholic). Outside of that, however, we are free to judge people's actions. If a bishop says that women can be priests, I'd label that as a heresy. My real thing is that if a person commits an undeniable heresy, wouldn't that exclude him from the Catholic Church?
I agree
-
Ok, gotcha. Sorry for the mis-understanding.
As far as them making decisions they cannot make, I do think that judging the Pope as an anti-pope is a bit extreme (unless the Pope were to commit undeniable heresy or if he was not Catholic). Outside of that, however, we are free to judge people's actions. If a bishop says that women can be priests, I'd label that as a heresy. My real thing is that if a person commits an undeniable heresy, wouldn't that exclude him from the Catholic Church?
If a person simply speaks a heresy this doesn't exclude him from the Catholic Church.
If a person speaks a heresy you must rebuke him, if he recants he is not in heresy and never was, he was just in error. If he persists and argues it or declares himself a believer that something the catholic church believes is not so then he is a heretic.
That's my understanding of it.
-
Also a Clergy is judged at final judgement doubly for sins that he allows or encourages in his flock.
I wish I remembered the quote my Priest gave me at the dinner party/get together on Sunday night, but it went something like "In most lines in hell there is a Priest at the back, because the ones in front are saying 'but Father said...'" He then went on to say, "you'll never be able to say that I told you it was ok to do X"
-
He may apparently hold to a heresy, but whether or not this means he is no longer a Catholic is a different matter. That would be up for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. Very few of these NO Catholics even know enough about the true faith to knowingly hold to heresy. Many of them don't even know what the true Faith is and think that the Church is fine with you believing almost whatever you'd like. It is mass confusion spawned by a complete abdication of authority's obligation to condemn error and discipline those who spread it. That is their role and duty. If they don't do it, all we can do is point it out to them and try to correct the errant and error ourselves the best we can. But we can't go judging on our own authority whether certain clerics have lost their office.
-
From what I have always understood regarding this topic, an attempt to ordain a human being of the female sex to the Sacred Priesthood would be like attempting to confect the ineffable act of Transubstantiation using cheese. It would be a grave sacrilege, a horrible profanation, an unspeakable crime, and a ludicrous absurdity.
Such a thing, according to my understanding, would be tantamount to positing that a perfect circle may indeed exceed 360 degrees, and that mathematicians should study the possibility of demonstrating that such a circle could exist.
-
From what I have always understood regarding this topic, an attempt to ordain a human being of the female sex to the Sacred Priesthood would be like attempting to confect the ineffable act of Transubstantiation using cheese. It would be a grave sacrilege, a horrible profanation, an unspeakable crime, and a ludicrous absurdity.
Such a thing, according to my understanding, would be tantamount to positing that a perfect circle may indeed exceed 360 degrees, and that mathematicians should study the possibility of demonstrating that such a circle could exist.
agreed
-
He may apparently hold to a heresy, but whether or not this means he is no longer a Catholic is a different matter. That would be up for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. Very few of these NO Catholics even know enough about the true faith to knowingly hold to heresy. Many of them don't even know what the true Faith is and think that the Church is fine with you believing almost whatever you'd like. It is mass confusion spawned by a complete abdication of authority's obligation to condemn error and discipline those who spread it. That is their role and duty. If they don't do it, all we can do is point it out to them and try to correct the errant and error ourselves the best we can. But we can't go judging on our own authority whether certain clerics have lost their office.
No doubt, they will be declared anethama by a later Pope I'm sure. When that happens the society will dissolve and we'll all be happy and thanked by the masses for our upholding the traditions :)
-
Really? When has BXVI publicly called for women's ordination or even admitted it is a posibility?
To the contrary he just denied the possibility of womenpriests again in his latest book.
The legal maxim is that silence gives consent. Americans tend to forget this because of our constitution, but the fifth amendment is a novelty in law.
I don't say that Benedict 16 has ever directly called for or even suggested women's ordination. In fact, he has repeatedly (through the years, at least when a cardinal) spoken and acted against women's ordination.
But he is supposed to be the supreme teacher now. Being silent in the face for such a call by a bishop is no longer an option. Even if he has never said anything positive about the subject in the past, his silence fosters an attitude among the other bishops, the theologians, and the laity (who have heard this bishop and others who have essentially said the same thing) that, well, the time might not be right but it will happen.
The longer he is silent, the louder his silence will be.
-
Really? When has BXVI publicly called for women's ordination or even admitted it is a posibility?
To the contrary he just denied the possibility of womenpriests again in his latest book.
The legal maxim is that silence gives consent. Americans tend to forget this because of our constitution, but the fifth amendment is a novelty in law.
I don't say that Benedict 16 has ever directly called for or even suggested women's ordination. In fact, he has repeatedly (through the years, at least when a cardinal) spoken and acted against women's ordination.
But he is supposed to be the supreme teacher now. Being silent in the face for such a call by a bishop is no longer an option. Even if he has never said anything positive about the subject in the past, his silence fosters an attitude among the other bishops, the theologians, and the laity (who have heard this bishop and others who have essentially said the same thing) that, well, the time might not be right but it will happen.
The longer he is silent, the louder his silence will be.
Unfortunately, TKGS, many traditionalists do not believe "silence gives consent" in a case such as this. They will argue against it, requiring an explicit admission by the authority, saying, "I approve of Bp. X doing this."
-
Tele,
1.) All the bishops are not fiving sinful commands in matters of faith and morals. In fact they are commanding nothing these days.
2.) Where the bishop is there the Church is? What do you mean by this?
3.) Military analogy is simple. You have no authority to personally decide an officer who gave an unlawful order is not an officer because of it. You have the right to disobey the unlawful order. That is it. The officer is judged by the military courts or his commanding officer. Not you.
4.) Manifest heretic is a member of the Church until the Church (not you) says he is not a member. In the meantime, if he holds an office over you, you refuse to obey sinful commands and petition the Church to remove him.
5.) Refusing to obey sinful commands is judging the sinfulness of an act which is entirely different from judging whether the giver of the command loses his office. The former we do all the time and is a judgment we all must make (morality). It does not cause anarchy because it is not a judgment of persons or their office which is the job of the Church, not you or I.
I accept the bishop as bishop all the time. Disobeying a bishop is not the same as not "accepting" him as bishop. I have authority to make moral decisions for the sake of my soul because I am directly responsible for my soul, not my bishop. Thus I have authority to make moral decisions regarding any orders my bishop gives me.
6.) A bishop does not command or require you to give money, so you still would not be disobeying if you did not do so.
7.) Bishop has never said I'm forbidden to go to SSPX. If he did, he would be in direct contradiction to the PCED. The PCED has jurisdiction over matters regarding the juridical status of the Society, not the local ordinaries. It would be like my bishop forbidding me to go to any other Mass Rome has said it would not be sinful to go to.
8.) Even if the PCED said not to go, again it is a moral judgment regarding my soul. By choosing to disobey the PCED in a specific instance I'm not denying the PCED is a Pontifical Commission, nor do I deny their authority in principle. I would be choosing to disobey a specific command. That act of disobedience would be judged by moral principles. In certain cases disobedience can be justified, and so on.
You (and sedes) confuse legitimate moral judgments with judging the offices and office holders in the Church which we have no authority to do. I'm not sure how else to state this. It is really self-evident.
Stevus, you don't accept the authority of the Bishop. All your protests to the contrary don't change the reality. Sophistical evasions that you don't have to obey morally bad commands are just that - it's not up to you to decide whether or not the masses the bishop approves are good or bad.
You and the SSPXers systematically refuse to accept the Bishop's authority, but then you have the temerity to accuse sedes of going too far.
Having a Bishop you don't obey is trying to have it both ways.
And you know it.
-
A good way to cut through the sophistic nonsense is to ask how you could explain the "recognize but disobey" position to Protestants.
You start telling them about the ecclesiastical authorities and how they preserve the unity of the Church but then the Protestants will want to know why there is no genuine submission to those authorities.
The non-Catholic isn't going to buy into the idea that Stevus and the SSPX follow the Popes and the Bishops.
-
A good way to cut through the sophistic nonsense is to ask how you could explain the "recognize but disobey" position to Protestants.
You start telling them about the ecclesiastical authorities and how they preserve the unity of the Church but then the Protestants will want to know why there is no genuine submission to those authorities.
The non-Catholic isn't going to buy into the idea that Stevus and the SSPX follow the Popes and the Bishops.
ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.
Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.
Under Ordinary conditions you must obey your Bishop, under extraordinary conditions you must disobey them.
When Athanatius finally succedded against the Arians, those who followed the MANY Arian Bishops, who were the diocesans and had authority over them by the Holy See and the Pope Liberius, were excommunicated. Just as the Bishops were.
A Bishop is doubly at fault but you who follows that Bishop are also at fault of obeying an illicit command.
Athanatius was excommunicated, exciled numerous times and was vindicated and he was proclaimed a Saint. His followers were declared the true followers of the catholic church.
But according to you since they no longer were inside the heirarchy they were wrong? A Saint and Doctor of the church? I think not!
The Unity of the Church is preserved Universally. If it is not Universal it is not the Church. Universally includes TIME. What was taught in the past must be taught in the future nothing can be infallible if it did not come from God to his Apostles either through scripture or tradition. It must have always been believed. When someone teaches something that contridicts this they are NOT to be obeyed on pain of sin.
While we cannot condemn them as we do not possess the authority to do so, we are obliged to not obey them and await their condmenation later.
Now I'd like to ask you something. Is what Stevus says true? Are you diocesan? How do you reconcile your views being inside the concillar church? Are you obeying the concillar commands? Are you praying with heretics and heathens?
If the Pope hadn't of declared that Tridentine masses could be said by any Priest(Which was declared as part of a demand by the SSPX before any talks could be held) would you still be going?
-
Really? When has BXVI publicly called for women's ordination or even admitted it is a posibility?
To the contrary he just denied the possibility of womenpriests again in his latest book.
The legal maxim is that silence gives consent. Americans tend to forget this because of our constitution, but the fifth amendment is a novelty in law.
I don't say that Benedict 16 has ever directly called for or even suggested women's ordination. In fact, he has repeatedly (through the years, at least when a cardinal) spoken and acted against women's ordination.
But he is supposed to be the supreme teacher now. Being silent in the face for such a call by a bishop is no longer an option. Even if he has never said anything positive about the subject in the past, his silence fosters an attitude among the other bishops, the theologians, and the laity (who have heard this bishop and others who have essentially said the same thing) that, well, the time might not be right but it will happen.
The longer he is silent, the louder his silence will be.
Unfortunately, TKGS, many traditionalists do not believe "silence gives consent" in a case such as this. They will argue against it, requiring an explicit admission by the authority, saying, "I approve of Bp. X doing this."
I know. And when certain people explicitly do or say something contrary to the faith, those same individuals will tell us what they "really" mean.
-
ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.
Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.
Here's the problem - the Church can't lead souls to destruction.
Like I said, try to explain this resist and recognize position to non-Catholics. We follow the Pope and bishops, but we don't follow the Pope and bishops. The Church is indefectible, but the Pope and bishops are leading people to hell. If your hierarchy is leading people to hell then it has defected.
-
He may apparently hold to a heresy, but whether or not this means he is no longer a Catholic is a different matter. That would be up for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. Very few of these NO Catholics even know enough about the true faith to knowingly hold to heresy. Many of them don't even know what the true Faith is and think that the Church is fine with you believing almost whatever you'd like. It is mass confusion spawned by a complete abdication of authority's obligation to condemn error and discipline those who spread it. That is their role and duty. If they don't do it, all we can do is point it out to them and try to correct the errant and error ourselves the best we can. But we can't go judging on our own authority whether certain clerics have lost their office.
Only problem is that the Church will not judge these people as heretics. I don't know if you remember, but recently some bishops in Germany said that Jesus Christ is not the Redeemer. To say such a thing is a blasphemy. What did Benedict do about them? Nothing.
My point is that if the Church won't act then we do have a right to label people as heretics. Not necessarily Popes (unless, as I pointed out, they commit an undeniable heresy or are not Catholic), but outside of that we may judge people by their actions.
-
He may apparently hold to a heresy, but whether or not this means he is no longer a Catholic is a different matter. That would be up for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. Very few of these NO Catholics even know enough about the true faith to knowingly hold to heresy. Many of them don't even know what the true Faith is and think that the Church is fine with you believing almost whatever you'd like. It is mass confusion spawned by a complete abdication of authority's obligation to condemn error and discipline those who spread it. That is their role and duty. If they don't do it, all we can do is point it out to them and try to correct the errant and error ourselves the best we can. But we can't go judging on our own authority whether certain clerics have lost their office.
Only problem is that the Church will not judge these people as heretics. I don't know if you remember, but recently some bishops in Germany said that Jesus Christ is not the Redeemer. To say such a thing is a blasphemy. What did Benedict do about them? Nothing.
My point is that if the Church won't act then we do have a right to label people as heretics. Not necessarily Popes (unless, as I pointed out, they commit an undeniable heresy or are not Catholic), but outside of that we may judge people by their actions.
I agree
-
ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.
Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.
Here's the problem - the Church can't lead souls to destruction.
Like I said, try to explain this resist and recognize position to non-Catholics. We follow the Pope and bishops, but we don't follow the Pope and bishops. The Church is indefectible, but the Pope and bishops are leading people to hell. If your hierarchy is leading people to hell then it has defected.
once again, the CHURCH is the magisterium, not the individual priests or bishops. Following the magiseterium cannot lead you to hell. But a Bishop can.
My Priest told me that there was a quote from someone and I wish I was paying more attention now. But it went something like "In many lines in hell there is a priest at the back, because everyone in front is saying 'But Father Said....' "
-
ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.
Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.
Here's the problem - the Church can't lead souls to destruction.
Like I said, try to explain this resist and recognize position to non-Catholics. We follow the Pope and bishops, but we don't follow the Pope and bishops. The Church is indefectible, but the Pope and bishops are leading people to hell. If your hierarchy is leading people to hell then it has defected.
once again, the CHURCH is the magisterium, not the individual priests or bishops. Following the magiseterium cannot lead you to hell. But a Bishop can.
My Priest told me that there was a quote from someone and I wish I was paying more attention now. But it went something like "In many lines in hell there is a priest at the back, because everyone in front is saying 'But Father Said....' "
But the SSPX is ignoring and attacking the post-1962 magisterium. Not just individual priests and bishops.
-
Tele, the post-1962 magisterium isn't even Catholic. The CMRI and SSPV don't follow it, either. So why is the Society suddenly trying to have it both ways when they're doing what a majority of Traditionalists do?
-
Tele, the post-1962 magisterium isn't even Catholic. The CMRI and SSPV don't follow it, either. So why is the Society suddenly trying to have it both ways when they're doing what a majority of Traditionalists do?
You are inadvertently proving my point SS.
-
I guess I should have been more clear. When I said the Magisterium I was talking about the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which is infallable. You are clearly refering to the Authentic Magisterium which is not infallible. It is called Authentic because it authentically comes from the Pope. But it does not come from tradition and thus cannot be proclaimed as being infallilbe since it does not originate with Our Lord Jesus Christ to his Apostles in either scripture or traditions handed down from said.
If you would like an understanding of the differences in the magisterium's read the post I made on the Infallible Magisterium. It is a link. Click it and read it. It is very long.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/clear-ideas-on-the-infallible-magisterium
-
"This new idea of an "Authentic Magisterium" opposed to the ordinary and universal magisterium has already been adequately refuted by Mr. John Lane.
See http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=308#308
IMO, this issue clearly needs study to make sense of the Ordinary Magisterium. What happened here?
I disagree. We can read the theologians and understand them, even if they never deal with the heliocentrism question.
BTW, the SSPX has a clearer presentation on their position of the Ordinary Magisterium, which I'm sure most have read, but, if not, here's the link: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
That's much better, but still erroneous. Here's a quote from it. Note the switch in terminology (accidental, clearly) from the pontifical ordinary magisterium to the ordinary magisterium, period. That is, from the papal teaching office to that of all the bishops in general.
The lack of clear ideas on the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium appeared in full with Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and more recently with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II repeated the Church’s refusal to ordain women.
When Humanae Vitae came out, various theologians indicated that the notion of ordinary papal Magisterium was obscured. Generally speaking, those who supported the infallibility of Humanae Vitae deduced "the proof [of this infallibility —Ed.] on the basis of the Church’s constant and universal Authentic Magisterium, which has never been abandoned and therefore was already definitive in earlier centuries." In other words, on the basis of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (E. Lio, Humanae Vitae ed infallibilità, Libreria Ed. Vaticana, p.38 ). They should have noticed that even the notion of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and its particularity [its constancy and universality —Ed.] had been effaced from the minds not only of the ordinary faithful but also of the theologians.
Such sloppiness in terminology is completely disastrous. What, we may wonder, is under discussion here? And if it seems that we are only discussing the pontifical magisterium, which seems sufficiently clear when examining the text to this point, then why is it that we are suddenly faced with terms such as "the Church’s constant and universal Authentic Magisterium" - which could only refer to the ordinary magisterium of the bishops, not the pontifical ordinary magisterium?
Proceeding, we witness further examples of this lack of clear thought.
Thus, we will devote ourselves, not to the Extraordinary Magisterium (whose infallibility is generally acknowledged), but to the Ordinary Magisterium. Once we have illustrated the conditions under which it is infallible, it will be clear that outside these conditions we are in the presence of the "authentic" Magisterium to which, in normal times, we should accord due consideration. In abnormal times, however, it would be a fatal error to equate this "authentic" Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium (whether "extraordinary" or "ordinary").
Fascinating. See how the word "pontifical" or "papal" absent. This is ambiguous at best. Further, note the complete novelty of the suggestion that the authentic (i.e. "authoritative") magisterium is to be given "due consideration." !!! Due consideration! One would think one were reading the words of an avowed Modernist. Let us be entirely clear about this - the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff binds under pain of mortal sin. The particular mortal sin in a given case may or may not be the sin of heresy, but it is mortal all the same. So that if one were to refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff's teaching authority even in a case in which he did not speak infallibly, then one would be on the path to eternal perdition. "Due consideration" may now take on its proper aspect.
This is also why this quote is thoroughly misleading in the context: "Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium 'can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith.'" Not for laymen, it can't. For laymen it ranges from compulsory under pain of mortal sin to compulsory under pain of remaining a member of the Church.
I cannot resist also commenting on the last sentence of that paragraph. Apparently it is only in "abnormal times" that we must avoid mistaking infallible for fallible teaching. Er, maybe not.
Continuing, we see how the pre-V2 theologians are sound and the post-V2 ones are at best confused.
In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching.
"This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;..." (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10)
Note how a statement which is true in itself, but which doesn't really relate what is being argued, is inserted as though it belongs. It is quite true that Tradition is handed down in this manner. It is quite false to suggest that anything taught by a series of fallible acts must therefore be a matter of Tradition if it is to constitute infallible teaching. Quite false.
This is precisely why the DTC speaks of "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (loc. cit.). So, while a simple doctrinal presentation [by the pope] can never claim the infallibility of a definition, [this infallibility] nonetheless is rigorously implied when there is a convergence on the same subject in a series of docuмents whose continuity, in itself, excludes all possibility of doubt on the authentic content of the Roman teaching (Dom Nau, Une source doctrinale: Les encycliques, p.75).
If we fail to take account of this difference, we are obliterating all distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium:
"No act of the Ordinary Magisterium as such, taken in isolation, could claim the prerogative which belongs to the supreme judgment. If it did so, it would cease to be the Ordinary Magisterium. An isolated act is infallible only if the supreme Judge engages his whole authority in it so that he cannot go back on it. Such an act cannot be ‘reversible’ without being plainly subject to error. But it is precisely this kind of act, against which there can be no appeal, which constitutes the Solemn [or Extraordinary] Judgment, and which thus differs from the Ordinary Magisterium." (ibid., note 1)
Which is quite right and entirely sound, and does not support the SSPX position in the slightest. However, immediately the author of the article adds his own interpretation, and changes the meaning:
It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18 ).
Suddenly the word "certitude" appears! This is truly frightening. Now apparently we cannot possess certitude unless the pope speaks infallibly! What a strange intellectual world this fellow inhabits. And apparently he is innocent of the writings of the theologians, who constantly describe doctrines as "certain" which have not been taught infallibly. The word "certitude" has no place here at all. We are not questioning the certitude of papal doctrines in encyclicals - we are questioning their infallibility. There is a world of difference. Therefore it does not "follow" at all that "none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone."
Strangely, after all this mess, the conclusion is not offensive, even if slightly exaggerated. Here it is:
This means, in effect, that an "isolated act" of the pope is infallible only in the context of a "dogmatic definition"; outside dogmatic definitions, i.e., in the Ordinary Magisterium, infallibility is guaranteed by the complex of "countless other similar acts of the Holy See," or of a "long succession" of the successors of Peter.
How "long" the succession needs to be to ensure infallibility is doubtful, but there can be no doubt about one thing - the summary here presented does not involve any suggestion of Tradition. Only "tradition."
The "Practical Application" is quite odd. It certainly doesn't follow from what has been demonstrated.
Practical Application
Because it declared itself to be non-dogmatic, the charism of infallibility cannot be claimed for the last Council, except insofar as it was re-iterating traditional teaching. Moreover, what is offered as the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium of the recent popes -apart from certain acts -cannot claim the qualification of the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." The pontifical docuмents on the novelties which have troubled and confused the consciences of the faithful manifest no concern whatsoever to adhere to the teaching of "venerable predecessors."
The V2 Council was said to be "non-dogmatic" but it is far from clear that it "declared itself" to be so. Particularly since several of its docuмents are entitled, "Dogmatic Constitution." But this is a question of the extraordinary magisterium , and it won't detain us now.
On the question of the "Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium" the facts are in dispute - that is, the Nopes of V2 have indeed shown themselves to be "concerned" to "adhere to the teaching of venerable predecessors." The problem is that the predecessors were not venerable, and the doctrine was not Tradition. Only "tradition." Would the pre-V2 theologians have considered the continuous and repeated acts of three "popes" to be sufficient guarantee of infallibility? Yes. Especially when the cooperation in the teaching of, for example, religious liberty, has been morally universal by the "bishops" around the world. Because the situation either constitutes a doctrine presented by the infallible pontifical magisterium or the universal ordinary magisterium.
This, however, we can agree with entirely: "It is clear that when today’s popes contradict the traditional Magisterium of yesterday’s popes, our obedience is due to yesterday’s popes: this is a manifest sign of a period of grave ecclesial crisis, of abnormal times in the life of the Church."
In attempting to explicate this novel and perplexing problem, however, the author delivers more error.
The Magisterium, however, even in its non-infallible form, should always be the teaching of the divine Word, even if uttered with a lesser degree of certitude.
The magisterium does not confine itself to "the divine Word" and never has. It has been infallibly taught by Holy Mother Church that the Council of Trent was a legitimate general council of the Catholic Church. This is not a question of "the divine Word." It is a question of fact.
The most pernicious section of this article, however, is towards the end, where the suggestion is inculcated that we are not truly bound by the "merely authentic" magisterium. We are - and we are bound under pain of sin. Cardinal Billot is quoted:
"The command to believe firmly and without examination of the matter in hand... can be truly binding only if the authority concerned is infallible" (Billot, De Ecclesia, thesis XVII).
Cardinal Billot's doctrine has here been so truncated as to make him say the opposite of his true position. He is merely expressing the truth that an expert (i.e. a theologian) cannot be finally and absolutely bound by the magisterium to a particular definition unless it really is a definition, and not something less clear. The general faithful,, however, who could not possibly possess good cause for imagining some slight correction to the formulation of a doctrinal expression, have no such excuse or opportunity. For us, the word of the pope is final, whatever we imagine our intelligence or erudition to be. Cardinal Billot has, in that place, explained all of this, but it has all been omitted from the quote. The lack of scholarship of the writer concerned is frightening.
This nonsense is capped off with:
The Catholic world is all the more in danger of being drawn into error, since it nourishes the naive and erroneous conviction that God has never permitted the popes to be mistaken, even in the Ordinary Magisterium (and here no distinctions are drawn), and so imagines that the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium -which in no way corresponds to the Church’s teaching.
Which is just awful. I may be "naive," but l am naive with the theologians, none of whom admit that in fact a pope has ever erred in an encyclical, for example. But in any case this argument is against a straw man - nobody is arguing that "the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium."
The final section of this article, on the "grace of state" of the Roman Pontiff, omits to mention the crucial truth which Cardinal Franzelin lays down, which is that the doctrinal instructions of the Roman Pontiff may not always be infallibly true, but they are protected by a special doctrinal providence, so that they are always infallibly safe. That is, if a pope errs, he errs safely. An example would be an error of fact such as a date or a name, or perhaps some doctrinal point which does not impinge on the Faith itself. Cardinal Franzelin, in case anybody is unaware, was one of the greatest theologians of the nineteenth century, and wrote a book especially to explain and defend infallibility and related points following the Vatican Council. The cases given of Popes John XXII and Sixtus V, only go to prove the point. John XXII erred only as a private doctor and only on a point still controverted by the theologians, and Sixtus erred in no way publicly, not even as a private doctor, because St. Robert Bellarmine succeeded in preventing him from going ahead with his intention to publish his own version of the Vulgate.
Bossuet’s opinion that it “happens once or twice in a thousand years” is the kind of opinion Catholics can do without, for it is the opinion of a Gallican, whose aim was to minimise, if possible, the prerogatives and charisms of the Roman Pontiff. The fact that such an “authority” should be quoted only illustrates the desperation of our opponents. Bossuet was a great man, but even great men wink occasionally – and in matters connected with the rights and privileges of the See of Rome Bossuet is universally admitted to have winked, to say the least.
Finally, a passage we can agree with wholeheartedly:
In normal times the faithful can rely on the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium with the same confidence with which they rely on the Infallible Magisterium. In normal times, it would be a very grave error to fail to take due account of even the simply "authentic" Magisterium of the Roman pope. This is because if everyone were permitted, in the presence of an act of the teaching authority, to suspend his assent or even to doubt or positively reject it on the grounds that it did not imply an infallible definition, it would result in the ecclesiastical Magisterium becoming practically illusory in concrete terms, because the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only relatively rarely expressed in definitions of this kind (DTC, vol. III, col.1110).
In normal times. Yes, in those times when there is a Catholic Pope. Or, to say the same thing in other words, when there is a Pope.
-
Tele, I guess I should say "how" is the SSPX trying to have it both ways when what they're doing as far as following Tradition closely mimicks the SSPV and CMRI.
-
Tele, I guess I should say "how" is the SSPX trying to have it both ways when what they're doing as far as following Tradition closely mimicks the SSPV and CMRI.
They are not just acting like the SSPV and CMRI though. They attack sedevacantism and they negotiate with the Vatican. They attack sedevacantism to such an extent that many SSPX parishioners see sedes as being schismatics.
They blame the sedes for judging the putative Popes and Bishops when they themselves refuse to be bound by the people they call Popes and Bishops.
-
I agree that they do attack sedevacantism, but alot of that comes from Bishop Fellay, who in turn makes the parishes think sedevacantism is wrong. However, they aren't negotiating with the Vatican. That's absurd. They're negotiating with them just because they're trying to convert them?
-
"This new idea of an "Authentic Magisterium" opposed to the ordinary and universal magisterium has already been adequately refuted by Mr. John Lane.
Catholic Encyclopedia article from 1912
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Manifestly there is no question here of a meaning which is not in Scripture and which the magisterium reads into it by imposing it as the Biblical meaning. This individual writers may do and have sometimes done, for they are not infallible as individuals, but not the authentic magisterium. There is question only of the advantage which the living magisterium draws from Scripture whether to attain a clearer consciousness of its own thought, to formulate it in hieratic terms, or to triumphantly reject an opinion favourable to error or heresy.
-
"This new idea of an "Authentic Magisterium" opposed to the ordinary and universal magisterium has already been adequately refuted by Mr. John Lane.
Both John Lane and John Daly have erred on this point. They think that the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to extension merely in place, but not in time, i.e. tradition. Therefore they misunderstand the nature of said magisterium, implicitly reducing all its acts to an infallible exercise of authority, either ordinarily (based upon their misunderstanding) or extraordinarily. But the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to a dual extension of space, i.e. the moral body of bishops and time, an ascertainable doctrinal tradition.
But I have argued all along that the post-conciliar Popes have tacitly renounced their authority only to engage in dialogue and invitations, thus also abandoning any substantial help from the Holy Ghost. And if you'll note, the rare moments when it actually has been exercised, there was nothing intrinsically objectionable. The bishops also must desire to be traditional in order for them to partake of their special teaching function. The lust for novelty has always been looked upon with abhorrence precisely because ecclesiastical tradition is a sure guide and manifestation of Divine Wisdom. But what happens when those who hold the office are themselves disobedient to tradition and unfaithful to their most basic duties? A crisis of faith results! The exercise of the magisterium is not a mechanical action, these men possess the free will to either fulfill their duties or not. They can hold the office but refuse to cooperate with the grace and duty of the office itself.
When discussing the essence of a doctrine, it is assumed that all else is equal and objectively proper. It is quite otherwise in a concrete situation where an evil arises. An example would be the teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism. When the magisterium taught this doctrine, it was presumed to be within the context of the Catholic Church. Now you can't say precisely the same thing when the context of its administration has changed, i.e. when administered in an heretical sect. The circuмstances have changed and therefore different principles come into play. But Vatican II takes the opposite method. When they discuss Baptism, they speak of it precisely in the same sense whether it has been administered within or without the fold. This is a grevious error for the circuмstance introduces an impediment. By glossing over this fact, it makes it appear that Baptism can be indiscriminately administered by anyone at anytime with the same efficacy and moral rectitude that accompanies its administration within the Catholic Church.
And this same method some traditional Catholics take vis-a-vis the teaching on the magisterium. They cannot distinquish between a principle and a concrete fact which is not always commensurate with the exigencies of the doctrine. Thus, due to a misunderstanding of the magisterium, people are tempted to renounce the entire hierarchy or enter the novus ordo.
-
"This new idea of an "Authentic Magisterium" opposed to the ordinary and universal magisterium has already been adequately refuted by Mr. John Lane.
Both John Lane and John Daly have erred on this point. They think that the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to extension merely in place, but not in time, i.e. tradition. Therefore they misunderstand the nature of said magisterium, implicitly reducing all its acts to an infallible exercise of authority, either ordinarily (based upon their misunderstanding) or extraordinarily. But the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to a dual extension of space, i.e. the moral body of bishops and time, an ascertainable doctrinal tradition.
But I have argued all along that the post-conciliar Popes have tacitly renounced their authority only to engage in dialogue and invitations, thus also abandoning any substantial help from the Holy Ghost. And if you'll note, the rare moments when it actually has been exercised, there was nothing intrinsically objectionable. The bishops also must desire to be traditional in order for them to partake of their special teaching function. The lust for novelty has always been looked upon with abhorrence precisely because ecclesiastical tradition is a sure guide and manifestation of Divine Wisdom. But what happens when those who hold the office are themselves disobedient to tradition and unfaithful to their most basic duties? A crisis of faith results! The exercise of the magisterium is not a mechanical action, these men possess the free will to either fulfill their duties or not. They can hold the office but refuse to cooperate with the grace and duty of the office itself.
When discussing the essence of a doctrine, it is assumed that all else is equal and objectively proper. It is quite otherwise in a concrete situation where an evil arises. An example would be the teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism. When the magisterium taught this doctrine, it was presumed to be within the context of the Catholic Church. Now you can't say precisely the same thing when the context of its administration has changed, i.e. when administered in an heretical sect. The circuмstances have changed and therefore different principles come into play. But Vatican II takes the opposite method. When they discuss Baptism, they speak of it precisely in the same sense whether it has been administered within or without the fold. This is a grevious error for the circuмstance introduces an impediment. By glossing over this fact, it makes it appear that Baptism can be indiscriminately administered by anyone at anytime with the same efficacy and moral rectitude that accompanies its administration within the Catholic Church.
And this same method some traditional Catholics take vis-a-vis the teaching on the magisterium. They cannot distinquish between a principle and a concrete fact which is not always commensurate with the exigencies of the doctrine. Thus, due to a misunderstanding of the magisterium, people are tempted to renounce the entire hierarchy or enter the novus ordo.
Or you are just wrong, Caminus. :fryingpan:
THE TRUE SENSE OF THE VINCENTIAN CANON
By Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin S.J. (1816-1886)
Thesis concerning the true sense of the Vincentian Canon.
1. The Canon [or theological rule] of Saint Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium Chapters 2, 4, 27 and 29) which assigns universality, antiquity and consensus of faith as characteristics of Catholic doctrine is perfectly true in the affirmative sense. In other words, a doctrine bearing these marks is certainly a dogma of the Catholic faith. It is not however true in the exclusive sense, i.e. if it be understood to mean that nothing can belong to the Catholic faith which has not been explicitly believed always, everywhere and by all.
2. In the context of the Commonitorium itself, the purport of the rule is simply to state two marks, either of which is sufficient to prove the absolute antiquity, or apostolicity, of a doctrine, viz : (a) the present consensus of the Church, and (b) the consensus of relative antiquity, i.e. as it stood before the controversy arose.
I
The Canon in question is stated by Saint Vincent of Lerins in the following terms: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic... This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity and consensus.” (Chapter 2) Note first that the reference is not to any points whatsoever that are held and observed in the Church irrespective of the way in which they held. It is to those which are believed, i.e. held by faith. Now a thing can be believed in either of two ways: explicitly, or only implicitly. Whatever is contained in the deposit of objective revelation has certainly been believed at least implicitly everywhere, always and by all Catholics and nothing can be contained in the deposit of revelation which is not so believed. One would at once cease to be a Catholic if one were not ready to believe everything which has been sufficiently proposed to one as divinely revealed—or if one’s habit of faith did not extend to the assent to be accorded to everything included in revelation. But in this sense “to have been believed always and everywhere” cannot be given as a criterion and theological touchstone for recognising what is contained in revelation, for the objects of implicit faith are not in themselves known as revealed. And on the other hand, to investigate whether something has been at least implicitly believed everywhere, always, by all, is the same thing as investigating whether it is contained in objective revelation and Tradition; and it must therefore be established in the light of some other criterion—it cannot be itself a means of establishing it. So although it is true, both in the affirmative sense and in the exclusive sense, that everything belongs to the deposit of faith which has been at least implicitly believed everywhere, always, and by all, and that nothing belongs to this deposit which has not been so believed, nevertheless this cannot be the meaning of the Vincentian Canon.
It follows that the proposed criterion can only be understood of explicit faith. Now it has been established in the preceding theses that a universal consensus in recognising some dogma as a doctrine of faith, at whatever period this consensus may exist, is a definite criterion of divinely transmitted doctrine.93 There is therefore no doubt that such an agreement or consensus in antiquity proves divine Tradition, and that the consensus of all ages does so most splendidly.94 So whatever has been believed always, everywhere and by all, cannot but have been revealed and divinely transmitted.
However it has been no less established in the foregoing that certain points of doctrine can be contained in the deposit of objective revelation which were not always contained in the manifest and explicit preaching of the Church, and that for as long as they were not sufficiently proposed it was possible for them to be the object of controversy within the limits of the Church without loss of faith and communion.95 So a given point of doctrine can be contained in objective revelation and can also, with the passage of time—when it has been sufficiently explained and proposed—come to belong to those truths which must necessarily be believed with Catholic faith, while yet this truth, though always contained in the deposit of revelation, has not been explicitly believed always, everywhere and by all; nor was there any necessity that it should be so believed. So although the marks listed in the Canon, if present, constitute manifest proof that the doctrine they relate to is a dogma of the Catholic faith, their absence by no means necessarily proves that a given doctrine was not contained in the deposit of faith; neither does it prove that a doctrine, which, for want of sufficient proposition at a given time, did not need to be explicitly believed, may not at some other time be the object of obligatory belief. So the Canon is true in the affirmative sense, but cannot be admitted in the negative and exclusive sense.
II
If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:
a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.
b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.
By either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecuмenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers.
Finally, if, in some polemical altercation, the heretics were to go so far as not even to venerate the authority of the preceding Fathers, he admits that we have no remaining common principle between them and us save the authority of Scripture. That the foregoing interpretation is the true one is clear from the entire context of Saint Vincent’s Commonitorium.
a) He says that one must hold “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all,” without distinguishing whether it was so believed implicitly or explicitly (Chapter 2). But then he indicates marks by which we can come to know whether something was thus believed everywhere, always and by all, and these marks are: universality, antiquity and consensus. “This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus.” Hence, “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all” is not itself a criterion [of the duty to believe] but is rather something to be established by means of distinct criteria, namely universality, antiquity and consensus.
b) What Vincent means by universality he explains straight away: “We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses.” Hence universality is the agreement of the entire Church, and, insofar as it is distinct from the mark of antiquity, it is the consent of the Church at this present time when the controversy has arisen. This is manifest from Chapter 3 in which Vincent contrasts universality, as the present consensus, which can be troubled by newly invented errors, with antiquity, i.e. the agreement of the previous age “which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty”. Moreover in the Chapter 29 he says that universal consent is to be followed “lest we...be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism,” which he illustrates in Chapter 4 by the example of the Catholics in Africa, who “detesting the profane schism [of Donatus], continued in communion with all the churches of the world [which were at that time in agreement].”
c) The mark of antiquity is understood by Vincent in the sense of relative antiquity, whereby absolute antiquity or apostolicity is to be inferred: this is clear from his entire manner of reasoning. For he invariably situates antiquity in the judgement of preceding Fathers or Councils—a judgement existing before the appearance of the heresy to be refuted or the controversy to be decided. “In antiquity itself..., to the temerity of one or of a very few, they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters.” (Chapter 27)97 And in Chapter 28 he says that to ancient heresies one should oppose councils which took place before those heresies arose, while, if even these councils are condemned by the heretics, there remains only the common source of Scripture to use in argument against them.
d) Finally, Saint Vincent of Lerins everywhere clearly teaches that either one of these two marks—i.e. universal consent and the agreement of antiquity—suffices to demonstrate the apostolicity of a doctrine. Thus in Chapter 3 he writes : i) “What then will a Catholic Christian do if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?” Here universal consent is opposed to local error. ii) “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity.” Here antiquity is appealed to in the event that contemporary controversies should have muddied the waters and made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church. There can therefore be no doubt that the true sense of the Vincentian Canon is the sense explained in our thesis. Any doctrine which is supported by neither of these two marks must be considered as being, at best, not yet sufficiently proposed to Catholic faith; and a doctrine which is repugnant to either mark must be considered to be a profane novelty.
Publishers’ Note. The foregoing text appears as Thesis XXIV in Franzelin’s masterpiece De Divina Traditione et Scriptura (Rome, 1875).
Footnotes:
93 See Theses V, n. iii ; VIII, nn. I, ii ; Corollary I to Thesis IX; Thesis XI, n. ii.
94 See Theses XIV, XV.
95 See Corollary ii to Thesis IX and Thesis XXIII.
96 Vincent’s apparently tripartite division in certain chapters : universitas, antiquitas, consensio, in fact contains not three but only two truly distinct parts, as is apparent from the author’s own explanation., and in Chapter 29 (i.e. the Recapitulation which is all that survives of the second Commonitorium), he himself reduces the three to two: “Regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity.”
97 There are no grounds for seeing in this or other passages from Saint Vincent of Lerins an error against the infallible authority of the definitions of the Roman Pontiff. Saint Vincent’s intention is to set out criteria of doctrinal apostolicity not only for the benefit of Catholics, but also for polemical use against the novelties of heretics—criteria which no one shall be able to refuse.
a) He offers these criteria against “only...those heresies which are new and recent, and that on their first arising.” (Chapter 28) So, given his supposition that no direct judgement has yet been made against them, he could not fittingly appeal to a papal definition either.
b) The criteria which he adduces are entirely true. His choice of them does not imply that he denies and excludes other criteria that may be applicable according to circuмstances.
c) In the criteria which he sets forth, the authentic judgement of the Apostolic See is at least implicitly included. For when such a judgement exists, either it authentically declares the antiquity of the consensus, or else it most certainly brings about universality. Hence if there is an extant pontifical definition promulgated in antiquity...it will always be possible to appeal to “the consentient belief of many and great masters” (Chapter 27).
d) For Vincent of Lerins, as for Irenæus before him, it is enough to appeal to the authority of the Apostolic See in order to establish the apostolicity of a doctrine. He makes this quite clear in Chapter 6: “It has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number : but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to everyone with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed Apostles [i.e. the Roman Pontiffs] have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.” He then recounts the innovation of the re-baptisers from Agrippinus of Carthage, before pursuing in the following terms : “When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his position [“loci auctoritate superabat”], so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation—nothing but what has been handed down... What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.”
-
And here is a further elucidation on the subject.
-
They think that the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to extension merely in place, but not in time, i.e. tradition.
Now let us read Cardinal Franzelin, theologian of great weight and papal theologian at Vatican I:
If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:
a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.
b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.
By either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecuмenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers.
-
And here is a further elucidation on the subject.
Of course we would expect an SSPX publication to support the SSPX position. But the SSPX position is a novelty on this point. Is it credible that Jesus Christ intended the Church's teaching authority to be one that the people, at any given time, must research her current teachings to see if they conform to all previous teachings of the Church?
This is like telling children in the first grade not to listen to the teacher unless they can confirm that her lessons in phonics agree with all previous teachings on the matter of pronunciation. I readily admit that this is not a perfect analogy since pronunciation changes over time, but the point is that the faithful cannot receive teaching by the magisterium if the faithful are obliged to research all current teaching prior to accepting it and such ability is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of the vast majority of the faithful.
-
And here is a further elucidation on the subject.
Of course we would expect an SSPX publication to support the SSPX position. But the SSPX position is a novelty on this point. Is it credible that Jesus Christ intended the Church's teaching authority to be one that the people, at any given time, must research her current teachings to see if they conform to all previous teachings of the Church?
This is like telling children in the first grade not to listen to the teacher unless they can confirm that her lessons in phonics agree with all previous teachings on the matter of pronunciation. I readily admit that this is not a perfect analogy since pronunciation changes over time, but the point is that the faithful cannot receive teaching by the magisterium if the faithful are obliged to research all current teaching prior to accepting it and such ability is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of the vast majority of the faithful.
It is an implicit denial of the proximate rule of faith.
The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.
Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.
1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)
2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.
-
No it is a recognition of a fact that the men who hold office are not being obedient to the magisterium, what they are saying is errant and thus not from the Church, but from errant men. You are confusing a principle with a concrete fact. It's no more a denial of the rule of faith than it is a denial that the human hand has five fingers when one points out that his neighbor only has four.
-
And here is a further elucidation on the subject.
Of course we would expect an SSPX publication to support the SSPX position. But the SSPX position is a novelty on this point. Is it credible that Jesus Christ intended the Church's teaching authority to be one that the people, at any given time, must research her current teachings to see if they conform to all previous teachings of the Church?
This is like telling children in the first grade not to listen to the teacher unless they can confirm that her lessons in phonics agree with all previous teachings on the matter of pronunciation. I readily admit that this is not a perfect analogy since pronunciation changes over time, but the point is that the faithful cannot receive teaching by the magisterium if the faithful are obliged to research all current teaching prior to accepting it and such ability is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of the vast majority of the faithful.
A momentary historical circuмstance doesn't amount to a principle. We live is a very special time as I'm sure you realize. Those disobedient men who were once condemned now occupy the highest offices of the Church. Now it is precisely because our Catholic faith and doctrine is coherent that we can know when something is amiss. We all agree with the Novus Ordo on the articles of faith. The things that are destroying the faith are questions of doctrine and practice that support its integrity. The disintegration of the Church is clearly a purification, but this fact doesn't mitigate against the essential notes of the Church as I'm sure you'll concede.
-
Really? When has BXVI publicly called for women's ordination or even admitted it is a posibility?
To the contrary he just denied the possibility of womenpriests again in his latest book.
The legal maxim is that silence gives consent. Americans tend to forget this because of our constitution, but the fifth amendment is a novelty in law.
If you remember, St. Thomas More was cleverly using this maxim to hide behind as he indeed did not consent to Henry VIII as head of the Church in England. It was a clever legal maneuver. Should we assume St. Thomas consented to Henry being head of the Church in England because he was silent? That's ridiculous.
The Pope's silence and lack of discipline of this Bishop is scandalous and regrettable, but nothing new. What does this mean? That BXVI agrees with women's ordination because he doesn't discipline this bishop and therefore is not pope? Hardly! It means he is apparently failing in his God-given duties to protect the flock and the Faith, which, unfortunately, many popes over the years have failed to do.
-
Stevus, you don't accept the authority of the Bishop. All your protests to the contrary don't change the reality. Sophistical evasions that you don't have to obey morally bad commands are just that - it's not up to you to decide whether or not the masses the bishop approves are good or bad.
You and the SSPXers systematically refuse to accept the Bishop's authority, but then you have the temerity to accuse sedes of going too far.
Having a Bishop you don't obey is trying to have it both ways.
And you know it.
I love how you can read souls. You should become a priest!
Unfortunately, you feign the inability to grasp a simple point which I'm certain you really do understand (I can read souls too!). :wink:
Disobeying a particular command of someone in authority is not denying their legitimately holding their office. It is our responsibility to use our free will and intellect to make choices regarding the morality of our actions based on Catholic principles. The bishop is not infallible, last I checked, and can give bad commands. However, as I said, this principle is really moot because the bishops don't give any commands these days.
The bishop sits in his office, makes sure the money comes in, doesn't make waves, visits with politiciands, and attends fundraisers and dinner parties until he retires. When is the last time your bishop asked squat of you or commanded you to do anything? Most bishops with Society chapels in their dioceses simply act as if they did not exist and go on about their business. They don't even provide alternate TLM's under the MP. They could care less.
Meanwhile ROME has said it is not sinful to assist at their Masses. So HOW in the world are Catholics who assist at Society Masses deying their bishops are bishops and have ANY authority as Catholic bishops? That position is absurd.
Are you honestly telling me, if your bishop ordered you to stop saying your rosary your only choices would be:
1.) Decide that he is not really a Catholic bishop, though the Church says he is, and disregard any and all commands he gives from that moment onward (even if he later says we should say the stations of the cross or some such Traditional act).
or
2.) Forgo saying one's rosary like a mind-numbed automaton (Neo-Cath) and submit out of blind obedience.
This is the ridiculous false dichotomy the sedes set up which drives them to an extreme position that turns them into de facto Protestants living in their own false reality. I know you are too bright to fall for this, though your current anger at the Society may have you flirting with it. Stay away.
-
A good way to cut through the sophistic nonsense is to ask how you could explain the "recognize but disobey" position to Protestants.
You start telling them about the ecclesiastical authorities and how they preserve the unity of the Church but then the Protestants will want to know why there is no genuine submission to those authorities.
The non-Catholic isn't going to buy into the idea that Stevus and the SSPX follow the Popes and the Bishops.
You give them the example of St. Athanasius and tell them to read the story and point them to a book. It would be a good teaching lesson on infalliblity and its limits. Also you point out to them that the PCED said it is not a sin to assist at their Masses and they fulfill the Sunday obligation. You also point out to them that there is a difference in the fact that the SSPX is a society with an irregular canonical situation, and individuals in the Society or who assist at their Masses who are Catholics inside the Church.
You also point out the difference between Prot "reformers" like Luther who rejected 1500 years of Tradition and Traditionalists who support 2,000 years of Tradition.
You give them "The Great Facade" to read.
-
You give them the example of St. Athanasius and tell them to read the story and point them to a book.
The Romans deposed Liberius when they believed he had become a heretic. Liberius wasn't an Arian. But Benedict XVI is a modernist.
It would be a good teaching lesson on infalliblity and its limits.
As Catholics we're bound to accept the magisterium of the Popes. Now how do I explain to a Protestant that I accept the Pope but not his magisterium?
Also you point out to them that the PCED said it is not a sin to assist at their Masses and they fulfill the Sunday obligation.
And yet the Pope says that the SSPX priests have no ministry in the Catholic Church. So they are priests acting outside the Pope's authority, presuming Benedict XVI is Pope.
You also point out to them that there is a difference in the fact that the SSPX is a society with an irregular canonical situation, and individuals in the Society or who assist at their Masses who are Catholics inside the Church.
Sure I'll point out they are Catholics only they reject the magisterium of the Popes while calling them true Popes.
You also point out the difference between Prot "reformers" like Luther who rejected 1500 years of Tradition and Traditionalists who support 2,000 years of Tradition.
Yes, traditionalists support 2000 years of Tradition, but the current Pope signed the joint declaration on justification (which was approved by John Paul II. So was the Pope wrong in the 1500s or is the Pope wrong now? If Luther was wrong then then he's wrong now, if the Pope doesn't say Luther was wrong then he's departed from the Catholic Faith.
-
Yes, traditionalists support 2000 years of Tradition, but the current Pope signed the joint declaration on justification (which was approved by John Paul II. So was the Pope wrong in the 1500s or is the Pope wrong now? If Luther was wrong then then he's wrong now, if the Pope doesn't say Luther was wrong then he's departed from the Catholic Faith.
Speaking of Martin Luther, is everyone getting excited about 31 October 2017?
It's coming fast! Think of all the celebrations that are being planned at this moment in Rome and in dioceses all around the world!
I wonder if the Catholic bishop of Wittenburg will re-enact the big event.
-
Well, ML was, in JP2's words (utter from the pulpit of a Lutheran church), a "profoundly religious man..."
-
Yes, traditionalists support 2000 years of Tradition, but the current Pope signed the joint declaration on justification (which was approved by John Paul II. So was the Pope wrong in the 1500s or is the Pope wrong now? If Luther was wrong then then he's wrong now, if the Pope doesn't say Luther was wrong then he's departed from the Catholic Faith.
The Pope is obviously wrong now. If he believes that Luther did err and leave the Church, then he has departed from the Catholic Faith in that he rejects the decisions of the Church and his predecessors.
The problem with modern man is that he will not submit to God and His Church.
JMJ
-
Commentary other than "See, we have no Pope!" is welcome...
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-about-this-bishop.html
How about this bishop?
From the blog PrayTell, citing an article published by Der Sonntag on Black Saturday of this year:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wXtJN6NMNsE/Tb9OQuA9hqI/AAAAAAAAAGY/lAEWjebd184/s1600/Markus%2BBuchel.jpg)
These Easter Sunday words of a Swiss Catholic bishop suggest that the topic of women’s ordination won’t be going away anytime soon.
Markus Büchel calls for far-reaching reforms in the Catholic Church. The bishop of the diocese of St. Gallen [St. Gall] spoke out openly for women’s ordination. “We must search for steps that lead there,” he said. “I could imagine that women’s diaconate could be such a step.”
One has not been permitted to discuss women’s ordination for a good while. “We can’t afford this anymore.” Regarding priesthood for women, Büchel said, “We can pray that the Holy Spirit enables us to read the signs of the times.”
He made this explosive statement in the St. Galler Pfarreiblatt [St. Gall Parish Paper]. Sabine Rüthemann, media spokesperson for the diocese, confirmed: “The interview is authorized. What Bishop Büchel said is what he means.”
These are very far-reaching statements for a bishop. They signal a Catholic breaking of taboos. In canon law every ordained ministry is limited to men.
-
I think this fellow is trying to levitate his Missal. I wonder how he is termed as Catholic?
These are the follies of the "Church of the New Advent" (speaking of blasphemy)
JMJ
-
Gotta say, that altar girl is lookin mighty pious and engrossed in the powerful display of holiness taking place right in front of her...
-
Gotta say, that altar girl is lookin mighty pious and engrossed in the powerful display of holiness taking place right in front of her...
Must admit this is a good one. :laugh1: