Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ambrose on December 16, 2013, 01:02:12 PM
-
PFT wrote:
Just to be clear, neither the words "utterly discard" or "abrogated" were used to apply to the traditional rite, when this "NEW RITE" (as Pius XII himself calls it) was added. I noticed that right away about this docuмent.
The decree stated, "All things to the contrary notwithstanding." Do you understand what that means?
PFT wrote
Pius XII never said that one could not use the traditional Rite either. No where in this docuмent does it say that.
The decree states:
1. The restored Order of Holy Week is prescribed
2. Those who follow the Roman rite are bound to observe in the future the restored Order of Holy Week, as described in the typical Vatican edition. Those who follow other Latin rites are bound to observe only the time set in the new Order for the liturgical functions.
3. This new Order must be observed from March 25, 1956, the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday.
The decree speaks for itself. All are bound to use the restored order of the Holy Week.
PFT wrote:
I'm a bit confused here, as some of these paragraphs you had included in the one you put in the library version of Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria, when I translated from Latin, are not contained here. Where did you get your translation? This is where I got mine.
This translation was posted on the Bellarmine Forums found HERE (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=112).
I have a translation from the AER, if I can find it I will scan it for you as well.
PFT wrote:
The one you posted in the library appears to be two separate docuмents.
There was a second decree relevant to the first, so it was included.
PFT wrote:
It would be helpful if you provided a link to your source.
There are two dates on the docuмent you linked. One from 1955, one from 1957. So where's the other one? I would like to source both of them if you don't mind.
They are both found on that same link on the Bellarmine Forums.
If you actually listened to Fr. Hesse, he takes full responsibility for HIMSELF for doing things the traditional way, and not the "new rite" that Pius XII "prescribed and approved" (again in Pius XII's own words.)
I never discussed this with Fr. Hesse, but I have no reason to doubt your word. As I sated before, we are living in confusing times, and I am not throwing stones at individuals, but I am upholding objective truth.
The rite approved by the Pope is Tradition. The Pope is Tradition (Pius IX).
May Fr. Hesse rest in peace.
-
Many of the more learned here go to the Bellarmine Forums for answers to our most perplexing questions.
I pray for the day when we can look to a living valid Pope.
-
Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.
-
Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.
Is not the truth what all of us seek? If your idea that a Pope can bind his successors were true, then you should have no problem providing authorities to support such a view. But, I can assure you that this has never been taught and all authorities that have explained this state exactly what I am telling you.
An equal cannot bind an equal. A Pope cannot bind his successors. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to believe?
-
Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.
Is not the truth what all of us seek? If your idea that a Pope can bind his successors were true, then you should have no problem providing authorities to support such a view. But, I can assure you that this has never been taught and all authorities that have explained this state exactly what I am telling you.
An equal cannot bind an equal. A Pope cannot bind his successors. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to believe?
What you're saying is partially true, but Quo Primum was binding on a MATTER OF FAITH, and Father Hesse aptly explains this, as do other good traditional priests like Fr. Perez, and Fr. Kramer.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was commanded by the Council of Trent to be codified. NOTHING NEW was added at that time, and it was canonized as something that already existed.
This was NOT a matter of discipline to codify the Mass. This was a matter of FAITH. The Apostolic Bull Quo Primum was NOT a disciplinary docuмent. It was a matter of the Faith. It has all of the hallmarks of a BINDING docuмent.
This is where you're wrong, though. You say that a "pope cannot bind his successors" but you don't say WHEN a pope cannot bind his successors. HE CANNOT BIND HIS SUCCESSORS ON MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE, which Quo Primum is NOT.
A pope MOST DEFINITELY CAN BIND HIS SUCCESSORS ON MATTERS OF FAITH, because matters of Faith are IMMUTABLE. Just ONE example of this is a Dogma, like the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If a pope cannot bind his successors ever, then everything is open to change.
-
I want to be very clear here.
A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.
When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.
I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.
-
PFT wrote:
I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.
I am very happy to hear this. But, just so you know, the changes of Pope Pius XII fall under the disciplinary laws of the Church. I was about to cite numerous authorities for you to prove that, but in light of your last post, I do not see that as necessary.
The Popes are infallibly protected in their universal disciplinary laws, so as long as we are dealing with certain popes, we can be certain that their laws for the Church are good, holy and acceptable to God.
This principle is certain with the Holy Week rites. There is no valid Catholic principle that can be used to argue against Pope Pius XII's Holy Week law.
I will agree with you in regard to the 1962 missal. There remains grave questions about the orthodoxy of John XXIII, and therefore it remains uncertain if his laws are binding or not. The case of John XXIII is not an easy one to solve. The question that needs to be tackled by scholars is not about the 1962 missal, it is whether he was certainly a pope. If he was a Pope, then there can be no question that his laws are binding.
Since John XXIII's status is very much an open question, the status of his laws are also an open question.
The process of reasoning this out with Paul VI and his successors, as they were all clear public heretics. Catholics can form moral certainty of the falsity of their claims, therefore all of their universal laws are have no binding effect on Catholics. A non-popes laws are not laws, therefore are not protected by infallibility, therefore open to heresy, error, and possible incentives to evil and impiety. This fact about Paul VI's Novus Ordo is plain for all with eyes to see. It was clearly not protected by infallibility.
If Paul VI were a true Pope, the Novus Ordo Missae could never have come from him, the infallibility of the Church in protecting the Pope's universal disciplinary laws would have prevented it from being promulgated.
I am with you in agreement that when a Pope comes again, I will readily and immediately submit to all of his laws. This is the reason that I already submit to Pope Pius XII's law, it was the last law of the Church given by a certain Pope, therefore the 1955 Holy Week is infallibly protected and acceptable to God.
-
I want to be very clear here.
A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.
When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.
I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.
Did you know that an "insane" or "out of his mind" "Pope" is not a valid Pope?
-
I want to be very clear here.
A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.
When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.
I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.
Did you know that an "insane" or "out of his mind" "Pope" is not a valid Pope?
Yes, but I suppose that's going to be for a future pope to decide whether those last 6 popes were antipopes or out of their mind. As a Catholic, you'd either have to be an apostate (which isn't even a Catholic), or out of your mind to do what they did. And that's not for me to decide.
-
I want to be very clear here.
A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.
When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.
I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.
Did you know that an "insane" or "out of his mind" "Pope" is not a valid Pope?
Yes, but I suppose that's going to be for a future pope to decide whether those last 6 popes were antipopes or out of their mind. As a Catholic, you'd either have to be an apostate (which isn't even a Catholic), or out of your mind to do what they did. And that's not for me to decide.
Gottcha. So you are not anti-SV.
-
Never have been. I'm actually sympathetic towards that point of view, however, my opinion is--- is--- is---
....
I
do
not
know.
God is not going to condemn me for ignorance of a situation that is impossible to filter through. I really don't think there are very many people who actually KNOW what happened, or what the situation is for absolutely certain right now, except maybe a few of the most heinously evil people that live at this moment. I would venture to say that maybe even a few good people know, but their silence isn't helping the rest of us know.
All I know, is that I'm a Catholic, and I respect the authority of the OFFICE of the Papacy, but can I know if Franny the Fraud, the "pope emiritus", JPII, JPI, Paul the Sick, and Fat John XXIII were really popes? Nope. -I- can't know. That doesn't effect my adherence to the Catholic FAITH. I adhere to the teachings and infallible definitions handed down by all the Popes up until the crisis, and that's really all I can do.
-
Never have been. I'm actually sympathetic towards that point of view, however, my opinion is--- is--- is---
....
I
do
not
know.
God is not going to condemn me for ignorance of a situation that is impossible to filter through. I really don't think there are very many people who actually KNOW what happened, or what the situation is for absolutely certain right now, except maybe a few of the most heinously evil people that live at this moment. I would venture to say that maybe even a few good people know, but their silence isn't helping the rest of us know.
All I know, is that I'm a Catholic, and I respect the authority of the OFFICE of the Papacy, but can I know if Franny the Fraud, the "pope emiritus", JPII, JPI, Paul the Sick, and Fat John XXIII were really popes? Nope. -I- can't know. That doesn't effect my adherence to the Catholic FAITH. I adhere to the teachings and infallible definitions handed down by all the Popes up until the crisis, and that's really all I can do.
I believe you will be able to look Jesus in the eye without squirming on this issue. I have respect for the position you hold.
If you were to say about the SV position something that losely translates to "No way man, you are crazy to hold a such a position" as the Grunner, Ferrara, Viannaey, Felley clan do, then I would have trouble respecting your position. If you appeared as knowledgeable as they, and you do appear knowledgeable, and took that attitude "the SV position is patently absurd" I would doubt your intellectual honesty. All the above could very well be sincere in that attitude and not willfully blind, but on the surface it certainly appears, to me, that they are intellectually dishonest.
I respect your position and even admire it as it is a position that the genuinely humble take.
The others seem as if they have "something to lose" if they renounce their public claims about the issue.
-
That's exactly my view on sedevacantism.
I consider it quite possible, nay, rather, very likely, ... or actually, almost morally certain, that the V2 popes were not legitimate.
Yet I feel that there absolutely must be some role for the Church's authority. Legitimacy of popes is classified as a dogmatic fact, and as such the legitimacy (or lack thereof) must be known with the certainty of faith. Otherwise, for instance, any dogmatic pronouncements made by a such a pope cannot be held with the certainty of faith either.
Consequently, I defer to the judgment of the Church. I consider my state of doubt sufficient reason to effectively withdraw from obedience to the V2 popes while avoiding formal schism.
I have problems with both the SVs who feel that you MUST hold it as practically de fide that these are not popes (the Sanborn anti-"Opinionism" position) as well as with the sedeplenists who hold that you MUST believe the V2 popes to be legitimate (all the while refusing to obey them but paying lip service and posting a token picture of the current V2 pope in the vestibule). Neither of those extremes is at all defensible.
Archbishop Lefebvre held a similar view, if you look at his entire body of work, and Bishop Tissier has articulated the same thing. Bishop Williamson has hinted at it and that one Resistance Father has said it (I forget his name momentarily).
-
The Popes are infallibly protected in their universal disciplinary laws, so as long as we are dealing with certain popes, we can be certain that their laws for the Church are good, holy and acceptable to God.
This principle is certain with the Holy Week rites. There is no valid Catholic principle that can be used to argue against Pope Pius XII's Holy Week law.
Yes and no. Infallibility protects the changes from having anything in them inherently harmful or contrary to the faith. It does not protect them from being inferior in a "relative" sense. Since they're not exactly the same, one can make an argument about which one is better and which one worse. That essentially is the epikeia argument made by the sedevacantists who fail to implement the Holy Week Rites, i.e. that they're inferior and/or "inopportune", i.e. harmful relatively speaking due to the modernist climate of our time; had the same changes been made 300 years ago, there would not have been a question.
Of course, the problem here is that the you could look at the Novus Ordo as just a LOT of changes very similar to the Pius XII changes, none of which in and of itself is inherently harmful. Is it intrinsically harmful or bad for the faith to reduce the Kyrie Eleison-Christe Eleison sequence from 9 to 3? You could go down the line for each change in the NOM.
As for the Pius XII changes, I absolutely LOVE the fact that the time of the Easter Vigil was changed. I've always found it extremely annoying to hear Traditional Catholics running around on Easter Saturday morning saying "Happy Easter". Didn't Christ die on the 3rd Day? That's CLEARLY an abuse that crept in over time. You look at the darkness & light imagery in the Liturgy, and it's obviously meant to be a TRUE VIGIL.
At the time of Pius XII, one would absolutely have been required to accept the changes and implement them. In a sedevacante or sede-"doubtist" period like this, however, there's some freedom for an application of epikeia.
-
I would say it is one thing to say all who are not SV are not Catholic. That is an improper position to take.
But to avoid the issue just to get long by hiding authentic teaching such as a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office is also wrong.
To be an "excuse me" people so to speak. Will golly gee you know a non-Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church and public heretics are not Catholics, and well, oh my this is difficult for me, but Bergi is a public heretic and well ah well it really is not important, just pray, we really do not need to acknowledge facts if they make up uncomfortable, oh, I'm sorry, did I offend you, I really didn't mean to, bergi, tries he's a good man. It really does not matter if you get invalid or doubtful sacraments I'm mean I guess they are invalid, I'm sorry, I hope I'm not offending you, I take it back.
No that is puke-worthy. Ignoring reality to "get along" isn't the Catholic way in my opinion. But acknowledging that you are not sure is very Catholic if you really are not sure.
-
But to avoid the issue just to get long by hiding authentic teaching such as a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office is also wrong.
You guys totally oversimplify the personal heresy issue. It's very complicated and not the least bit straightforward. You think that because you can construct a simple syllogism representing your argument that it must be true (cf. Sanborn position). That's quite wrong.
-
Firstly, it's not even a simple slam-dunk case that Bergoglio is a heretic. If there's one thing I could get him on, it would be his rejection of EENS. Yet, ironically, most SV Traditional Catholics hold essentially the same position on EENS that Bergoglio does. Recall also that not every error = "heresy" in the strict sense, in the sense that would remove from the Church.
Secondly, when does heresy become manifest to an individual's conscience? Only by the intervention of Church authority. I've gone through the whole thinking on this subject only to have it ignored. Perhaps I can try again here.
Thirdly, there's the inconvenient matter of there being an entire school of thought contrary to the Bellarmine opinion which believe that papa haereticus deponendus. You bloat the Bellarmine position to the level of being practically de fide truth when it's just one opinion among many on a very thorny issue (as evidenced even prima facie by the range of opinions on the subject).
If it was THAT slam-dunk and straightforward, then why should there by five or six opinions on the matter by reputable theologians?
-
The fact that a public heretic cannot be a Pope is a slam dunk and is that simple.
But those whose truly believe that he is not a public heretic or are invincibly ignorant of the above fact cannot be considered non-Catholics.
-
The fact that a public heretic cannot be a Pope is a slam dunk and is that simple.
But those whose truly believe that he is not a public heretic or are invincibly ignorant of the above fact cannot be considered non-Catholics.
No, it is not. This shows bad will on your part, and stuff like this is what leads to many of the bad fruits evidenced by sedevacantism. Was Cardinal Cajetan invincibly ignorant of the matter? No Traditional Catholic, however, can be said "invincibly" ignorant of the opinion you hold, since it's an ignorance that CAN be overcome.
-
Define "manifest heretic".
I use the term manifest rather than "public" because it's what St. Robert uses.
-
The fact that a public heretic cannot be a Pope is a slam dunk and is that simple.
Explain then why there are about five different opinions on the subject held by reputable theologians. Were all these men invincibly ignorant? Or were they just less discerning and intellectually capable than yourself?
-
Paul IV solemnly defined it. According to Bellarmine "All the Church Fathers" or something to that effect are in agreement and it is divine law.
There are minimums that are necessary in order for it to be possible to be Pope.
1. Male
2. Above the age of reason
3. Catholic (means not publicly schismatic, heretical or apostate).
4. Once elected if not a Bishop already it would be incuмbent upon him to be validly consecrated a bishop so he could fulfill the office of bishop of Rome and universal bishop.
5. Can't be insane.
6. Must accept the office.
Once it is realized that all the nonsense that has been "officially approved, promulgated and bound on the Church" has been done by those who have no authority the easier it is to make sense of the mess, unite under the banner of reality and move on in a united way based on the same fundamental premise.
This posturing and saying he is a heretic but not really a heretic or a modernist but not really a modernist and should be obeyed but not really obeyed and respected but not really respected and that he is the final authority unless we say otherwise is for the birds.
There was advice given to all the good willed by a man who is a delicate genius which went as follows:
He ain't the Pope man. Get over it.
Be careful how you respond to his statement because he is delicate.
-
Even St. Robert Bellarmine struggled somewhat over when heresy becomes sufficiently "manifest" to effect deposition. Manifest, moreover is an inherently subjective or criteriological term. Manifest to WHOM? To Lover of Truth? So the minute that heresy became manifest to Lover of Truth, Bergoglio ceased to be Pope? What if heresy is manifest to 25% of Catholics, while 24% of Catholics decide that Bergoglio has committed error short of heresy, while 51% think that Bergoglio was spot on and committed no error. What's the objective status of Bergolgio then? Very few heresies are as obvious as "Jesus Christ never rose from the dead."
Since heresy must be MANIFEST with the certainty of faith, and not based on private opinion, due to the papacy being dogmatic fact, only the Church's authority can make heresy MANIFEST in such a manner as to bind consciences and to bind faith. In this way can the varying opinions on the papa haereticus issue be reconciled. So, while the Church cannot ontologically EFFECT deposition, the Church must make the deposition manifest to consciences.
In the meantime, we cannot have anything other than a state of doubt.
-
Paul IV solemnly defined it. According to Bellarmine "All the Church Fathers" or something to that effect are in agreement and it is divine law.
Paul IV simply defined and the Church Fathers taught a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, i.e. that heretics are not Catholics. That's the simple part that everyone agrees on. It's in the APPLICATION of this principle that the opinions diverge. As I said, you OVERSIMPLIFY.
-
He ain't the Pope man. Get over it.
Did I every say that he is the Pope?
-
Let me start with this. Let's assume for a minute that Pius XII is still pope. Pius XII gives a Wednesday audience and says: "Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead." Did the Holy See just become vacant?
Is that not 1) heresy and 2) public / manifest (since it was made at a public audience)?
-
Let me start with this. Let's assume for a minute that Pius XII is still pope. Pius XII gives a Wednesday audience and says: "Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead." Did the Holy See just become vacant?
Is that not 1) heresy and 2) public / manifest (since it was made at a public audience)?
He would be given a reasonable amount of time to clarify. When questioned about it if he continued to insist on it, he should be avoided and not trusted. If something like this happened a second time I believe we could be sure.
It would be public and manifest heresy. But if it was the first time he ever uttered such nonsense we would give him a chance to recant, clarify or admit he made a mistake by asking him to do so. He would most certainly be asked to clarify. And then he would either prove to be pertinacious or readily accept the teaching.
-
OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant. In other words, even if Pius XII intended to utter a statement (wasn't just tongue-tied), let's say it was something that he didn't KNOW was heretical and immediately retracted when someone pointed out to him. He would have been guilty of only MATERIAL heresy.
So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.
-
OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant.
So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.
It indeed is as simple as he has to be a public heretic. A slip of the tongue does not a heretic make.
-
Next step. Manifest to how many? St. Robert Bellarmine struggled with this question. He actually ended up saying that the heresy is manifest as soon as it's in a position to be made known, which is extremely problematic.
Let's say that I work in the Vatican apartments cleaning toilets. I overhear Pius XII saying to some Freemason that he doesn't believe in the Real Presence. I am shocked and tell the world in a press conference. Pius XII comes out publicly and lies, saying that he never said any such thing.
Would Pius XII be a manifest heretic (and therefore deposed) then?
-
OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant.
So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.
It indeed is as simple as he has to be a public heretic. A slip of the tongue does not a heretic make.
Oh, but it does. It make a material heretic. Which is why I had to add the additional qualification "FORMAL" to heretic.
So let's get back to a point that I glossed over, since it doesn't appear anymore that you've conceded it.
Let's say that Pius XII said something that wasn't a slip of the tongue but he didn't know was heretical. Someone points it out to him, and he immediately recants once it was pointed out to him. Did he fall from the papacy? Did he fall from the papacy and regain it upon recanting? Did he not fall from the papacy at all since he was not obstinate and therefore not a formal heretic? Did he fall from the papacy and now a new election needs to be held?
I'm sure that you'll concede that a statement made in ignorance does not cause one to fall from the Church because it's not FORMAL heresy.
-
OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant.
So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.
It indeed is as simple as he has to be a public heretic. A slip of the tongue does not a heretic make.
Oh, but it does. It make a material heretic. Which is why I had to add the additional qualification "FORMAL" to heretic.
So let's get back to a point that I glossed over, since it doesn't appear anymore that you've conceded it.
Let's say that Pius XII said something that wasn't a slip of the tongue but he didn't know was heretical. Someone points it out to him, and he immediately recants once it was pointed out to him. Did he fall from the papacy? Did he fall from the papacy and regain it upon recanting? Did he not fall from the papacy at all since he was not obstinate and therefore not a formal heretic? Did he fall from the papacy and now a new election needs to be held?
I'm sure that you'll concede that a statement made in ignorance does not cause one to fall from the Church because it's not FORMAL heresy.
You are looking for the word "pertinacious" here not "formal".
If one errs due to ignorance and then accepts the Church teaching he is good. If he errs in ignorance and refuses to clarify or correct he is not good. We judge the exterior not the heart. But we are talking about a Pope with formal seminary training. Ignorance is not an excuse.
-
Firstly, it's not even a simple slam-dunk case that Bergoglio is a heretic. If there's one thing I could get him on, it would be his rejection of EENS. Yet, ironically, most SV Traditional Catholics hold essentially the same position on EENS that Bergoglio does. Recall also that not every error = "heresy" in the strict sense, in the sense that would remove from the Church.
Secondly, when does heresy become manifest to an individual's conscience? Only by the intervention of Church authority. I've gone through the whole thinking on this subject only to have it ignored. Perhaps I can try again here.
Thirdly, there's the inconvenient matter of there being an entire school of thought contrary to the Bellarmine opinion which believe that papa haereticus deponendus. You bloat the Bellarmine position to the level of being practically de fide truth when it's just one opinion among many on a very thorny issue (as evidenced even prima facie by the range of opinions on the subject).
If it was THAT slam-dunk and straightforward, then why should there by five or six opinions on the matter by reputable theologians?
It's getting easier -- MUCH easier-- now, because of this:
Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
Knowing that the Church cannot teach contradictions, there's absolutely no way in an official way, that a Pope can publicly teach this without being a heretic.
-
Pertinaceous and Formal are typically used interchangeably to distinguish true heresy from material heresy. Pertinacity is a hallmark or distinguishing characteristic of formal heresy.
-
It's getting easier -- MUCH easier-- now, because of this:
Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
Knowing that the Church cannot teach contradictions, there's absolutely no way in an official way, that a Pope can publicly teach this without being a heretic.
Ah, not so fast. I'm not even close to finished here.
Nevertheless, this is a tough one for me. I know that it's the passage that Father(?) Kramer cited in going SedeBenedicantist. But the passages everyone has cited as being in contradiction with this refer to the Old LAW being abrogated, not the Old Covenant. In fact, the Scriptures explicitly call the Abraham covenant "everlasting". In my view, the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant and by rejecting the Messiah, the Jєωs are unfaithful to the Covenant. But perhaps someone could educate me on this.
-
Genuine question to anyone who knows:
If Francis says this in an official way, what kind of heretic does that make him?
“We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
If you write something as Pope through an "encyclical" (or apostolic exhortation, or whatever it is), that's heretical, what does that make one?
I would think that would be formal heresy.
-
Firstly, it's not even a simple slam-dunk case that Bergoglio is a heretic. If there's one thing I could get him on, it would be his rejection of EENS. Yet, ironically, most SV Traditional Catholics hold essentially the same position on EENS that Bergoglio does. Recall also that not every error = "heresy" in the strict sense, in the sense that would remove from the Church.
Secondly, when does heresy become manifest to an individual's conscience? Only by the intervention of Church authority. I've gone through the whole thinking on this subject only to have it ignored. Perhaps I can try again here.
Thirdly, there's the inconvenient matter of there being an entire school of thought contrary to the Bellarmine opinion which believe that papa haereticus deponendus. You bloat the Bellarmine position to the level of being practically de fide truth when it's just one opinion among many on a very thorny issue (as evidenced even prima facie by the range of opinions on the subject).
If it was THAT slam-dunk and straightforward, then why should there by five or six opinions on the matter by reputable theologians?
It's getting easier -- MUCH easier-- now, because of this:
Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
Knowing that the Church cannot teach contradictions, there's absolutely no way in an official way, that a Pope can publicly teach this without being a heretic.
(1) Can someone post pre-VII teaching that says the covenant was revoked? I would not be surprised if this was Traditional teaching, but I don't think I've seen actual teaching on this.
(2) The bolded above: isn't this what is in the New Catechism?
New Catechism (paragraph 121): The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Is this a new addition to the Catechism? Is it coming from VII? If so, then isn't this heresy a VII heresy and not specific to Francis? Isn't Francis just repeating VII teaching? Doesn't this then point more towards the heresy inherent in VII (which all of the post VII popes encouraged)?
-
LOL. This thread has splintered into about 3 pieces. Perhaps we could split them apart or something.
I have to be out for a while, so I'll come back to it later.
-
Genuine question to anyone who knows:
If Francis says this in an official way, what kind of heretic does that make him?
“We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
If you write something as Pope through an "encyclical" (or apostolic exhortation, or whatever it is), that's heretical, what does that make one?
I would think that would be formal heresy.
Well, an encyclical would make the heresy public / manifest for sure :-). As to formal / pertinaceous, I'm not sure whether being in an encyclical makes a difference.
-
Genuine question to anyone who knows:
If Francis says this in an official way, what kind of heretic does that make him?
“We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
If you write something as Pope through an "encyclical" (or apostolic exhortation, or whatever it is), that's heretical, what does that make one?
I would think that would be formal heresy.
Correct.
-
OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant. In other words, even if Pius XII intended to utter a statement (wasn't just tongue-tied), let's say it was something that he didn't KNOW was heretical and immediately retracted when someone pointed out to him. He would have been guilty of only MATERIAL heresy.
So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.
Let me make sure I got this straight. You believe that someone who does not believe any heresy at all but merely has a slip of the tongue is objectively a material heretic?
-
Bump
-
That's exactly my view on sedevacantism.
I consider it quite possible, nay, rather, very likely, ... or actually, almost morally certain, that the V2 popes were not legitimate.
Yet I feel that there absolutely must be some role for the Church's authority. Legitimacy of popes is classified as a dogmatic fact, and as such the legitimacy (or lack thereof) must be known with the certainty of faith. Otherwise, for instance, any dogmatic pronouncements made by a such a pope cannot be held with the certainty of faith either.
You are right, there is absolutely a role for authority. We as Catholics may recognize a clearly evident fact prior to the judgment of authority, but our judgment binds no one else.
The issue here is that if these Popes were legitimate, certain other facts would be true. Catholics could not lawfully reject any of the authoritative teaching and law of these "popes." If they were popes, Catholics would not be free to judge their teaching and law, their duty would be to hear and submit.
Consequently, I defer to the judgment of the Church. I consider my state of doubt sufficient reason to effectively withdraw from obedience to the V2 popes while avoiding formal schism.
The trouble is that there is no such concept in the teaching of the Church. If a man is Pope, he can never lead you astray in his authoritative teaching or universal law, so the fact that you believe you must withdraw from him in the matters is only proof that he cannot be the Pope.
I have problems with both the SVs who feel that you MUST hold it as practically de fide that these are not popes (the Sanborn anti-"Opinionism" position) as well as with the sedeplenists who hold that you MUST believe the V2 popes to be legitimate (all the while refusing to obey them but paying lip service and posting a token picture of the current V2 pope in the vestibule). Neither of those extremes is at all defensible.
I also disagree with Bp. Sanborn's position. His coined term, "opinionism," is gravely misleading to say the least. Those who hold the position that these post Vatican II papal claimants are not popes are morally certain of the fact that these men are not popes. But, our private judgment of this fact cannot bind others. when the Church judges the matter, all are bound to hear the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre held a similar view, if you look at his entire body of work, and Bishop Tissier has articulated the same thing. Bishop Williamson has hinted at it and that one Resistance Father has said it (I forget his name momentarily).
Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that a Catholic could and even must judge these men as heretics, therefore losing their offices, (if they ever possessed them). He recognized that Catholics cannot ignore the Pope, and cannot just go about their lives in these chapels as though the pope did not exist.
-
Ambrose wrote:
The Popes are infallibly protected in their universal disciplinary laws, so as long as we are dealing with certain popes, we can be certain that their laws for the Church are good, holy and acceptable to God.
This principle is certain with the Holy Week rites. There is no valid Catholic principle that can be used to argue against Pope Pius XII's Holy Week law.
Ladislaus wrote:
Yes and no. Infallibility protects the changes from having anything in them inherently harmful or contrary to the faith. It does not protect them from being inferior in a "relative" sense. Since they're not exactly the same, one can make an argument about which one is better and which one worse. That essentially is the epikeia argument made by the sedevacantists who fail to implement the Holy Week Rites, i.e. that they're inferior and/or "inopportune", i.e. harmful relatively speaking due to the modernist climate of our time; had the same changes been made 300 years ago, there would not have been a question.
I never claimed that a rite may not be inferior than a former rite. It is possible for one to be better and one to be lessor. There would be no reason for Pope Pius XII to approve the revised rite if he didn't think he was making it better.
The problem here is who are anyone of us to make such a judgment? Who are these "traditional" bishops and priests to make a judgment that they are qualified to judge which received and approved rite of the Church is better and which is lessor?
Secondly, in order to invoke epikeia, one must be certain of the harm which comes from the universal law to reject it in a particular case, that the lawgiver failed to envision. Clearly, Pope Pius XII, the lawgiver! envisioned this law a good law! and even openly praised it.
I find any claim to epikeia to be an abuse. This law does not harm souls. I have never heard of any Catholic who attends the Pius XII Holy Week to have been spiritually harmed by it. It seems to me that once epikeia is stretched to justify rejecting an approved rite of the Church that is acceptable to God, then, anything goes. That to me seems to cause real spiritual harm.
Ladislaus wrote:
Of course, the problem here is that the you could look at the Novus Ordo as just a LOT of changes very similar to the Pius XII changes, none of which in and of itself is inherently harmful. Is it intrinsically harmful or bad for the faith to reduce the Kyrie Eleison-Christe Eleison sequence from 9 to 3? You could go down the line for each change in the NOM.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Pope Pius XII was changing the very long Holy Week rite to a shorter rite. Obviously some things needed to be omitted to shorten it. He did not change the ordinary of the Mass for the rest of the year, only for these days.
As the decree states, Catholics were not attending the former rite, so he took action, as a good pope would do. He shortened the rite and approved it to better fit into the times of Catholics living in the modern age, which was mostly not agrarian.
We can be absolutely certain that the changes made to the Holy Week did not affect the holiness of the rite. God will accept the rite his Vicar has promulgated. It is not for anyone to question what the Pope has bound the Church to do. Our duty as Catholics is to trust the Pope, and believe that his teaching and acts are good for us, as the Pope cannot lead us astray in his authoritative teaching and universal laws.
As for the Pius XII changes, I absolutely LOVE the fact that the time of the Easter Vigil was changed. I've always found it extremely annoying to hear Traditional Catholics running around on Easter Saturday morning saying "Happy Easter". Didn't Christ die on the 3rd Day? That's CLEARLY an abuse that crept in over time. You look at the darkness & light imagery in the Liturgy, and it's obviously meant to be a TRUE VIGIL.
I agree with you completely.
At the time of Pius XII, one would absolutely have been required to accept the changes and implement them. In a sedevacante or sede-"doubtist" period like this, however, there's some freedom for an application of epikeia.
I don't agree. The Pope's laws remain binding until a future Pope changes them. Whatever the Pope binds us to, then we are bound.
In order to invoke epikeia to reject Pope Pius XII's law, it must be demonstrated that the law is harmful in a particular situation, not envisioned by the lawgiver.
It seems to me that the circuмstances that existed in the 1950s which led the Pope to reform the Holy Week are still present today. I would be curious to hear how well attended the chapels are that use the older rite verse those that use Pius XII's Holy Week.
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
-
Amborse. Is someone who does not believe any heresy that slips and says something heretical a material heretic?
-
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
Well, how well-attended are the "resistance" Masses right now?
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
I mean, might must equal right then, according to that statement. Might as well go to the Novus Ordo if you're number hunting, and that has something to do with how good something is.
A future pope will come out definitely and say one way or the other. Until then, this is something contested. Whatever the future Pope's decision is, I'll go with.
-
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
Well, how well-attended are the "resistance" Masses right now?
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
I mean, might must equal right then, according to that statement. Might as well go to the Novus Ordo if you're number hunting, and that has something to do with how good something is.
A future pope will come out definitely and say one way or the other. Until then, this is something contested. Whatever the future Pope's decision is, I'll go with.
I am referring to the non-obligatory Holy Week liturgies and ceremonies. Sunday and Holy day Mass attendance is a different question altogether.
-
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
I would agree that the above quote doesn't contribute anything substantial to the discussion either objectively or taking into account reasons, other than the holy week differences, that attendance at one Church or another are the way they are.
Location, bad clergy, the number of true Catholics near the Church, etc.
Curiously does SJB visit all the Church's in the country that are SV traditional? There are many. He pretty much just has to compare them all (all the SV chapels apart from CMRI) with the CMRI chapels for his answer.
-
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
I would agree that the above quote doesn't contribute anything substantial to the discussion either objectively or taking into account reasons, other than the holy week differences, that attendance at one Church or another are the way they are.
Location, bad clergy, the number of true Catholics near the Church, etc.
Curiously does SJB visit all the Church's in the country that are SV traditional? There are many. He pretty much just has to compare them all (all the SV chapels apart from CMRI) with the CMRI chapels for his answer.
You misunderstand my comment. The pre-1955 data is factual. I was only commenting on the attendance where these ceremonies are still offered "pre-55."
-
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
I would agree that the above quote doesn't contribute anything substantial to the discussion either objectively or taking into account reasons, other than the holy week differences, that attendance at one Church or another are the way they are.
Location, bad clergy, the number of true Catholics near the Church, etc.
Curiously does SJB visit all the Church's in the country that are SV traditional? There are many. He pretty much just has to compare them all (all the SV chapels apart from CMRI) with the CMRI chapels for his answer.
You misunderstand my comment. The pre-1955 data is factual. I was only commenting on the attendance where these ceremonies are still offered "pre-55."
I thought you were implying that attendance at a pre or post 1955 Mass was indication of which version was better.
But now that I think of it, that is usually not the type of argument you would make.
-
SJB.
What locations have you seen. Is their a significant difference between the attendance at CMRI chapels and the other SV chapels that use the pre-1955 liturgy?
Of course in Ohio one pre-1955 Church split into two Churches but it had nothing to do with what liturgy they use.
-
Amborse. Is someone who does not believe any heresy that slips and says something heretical a material heretic?
I think that the them, "material" heretic is imprecise. A Catholic that misspeaks or says someting contrary to innocently that is contrary to the Faith is not a heretic at all.
I would urge you to read this brilliant article on this subject by John Daly found HERE (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html).
-
Amborse. Is someone who does not believe any heresy that slips and says something heretical a material heretic?
I think that the them, "material" heretic is imprecise. A Catholic that misspeaks or says someting contrary to innocently that is contrary to the Faith is not a heretic at all.
I would urge you to read this brilliant article on this subject by John Daly found HERE (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html).
I agree with you and wanted to get confirmation. Thank you Ambrose.
-
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
Well, how well-attended are the "resistance" Masses right now?
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
I mean, might must equal right then, according to that statement. Might as well go to the Novus Ordo if you're number hunting, and that has something to do with how good something is.
A future pope will come out definitely and say one way or the other. Until then, this is something contested. Whatever the future Pope's decision is, I'll go with.
I was only demonstrating that it is ironic that the reasons that Pius XII changed the rite, lack of attendance during the Holy Week, appears to be currently present at chapels that reject the reformed rite.
This point in no way changes the argument, but I do find it ironic.
-
Ambrose wrote
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
SJB also clarifies this point, but since I summarized his statement and there is some confusion on this, let me also clarify. I was only referring to his precise assessment of attendance at the Holy Week at churches that he is familiar with that reject Pius XII's Holy Week law.
I was not referring to regular Sunday and Holyday attendance. Catholics are not obliged to attend Mass during the Holy Week, but are strongly encouraged to do so.
In the early 1950's Catholics were for the most part no longer attending the rites of the Holy Week, and the Pope intervened by significantly shortening the rites and by changing the times to later in the day. The action of the Pope was with great success, and Catholics were once again participating in the Holy Week.
-
Amborse. Is someone who does not believe any heresy that slips and says something heretical a material heretic?
I think that the them, "material" heretic is imprecise. A Catholic that misspeaks or says someting contrary to innocently that is contrary to the Faith is not a heretic at all.
I would urge you to read this brilliant article on this subject by John Daly found HERE (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html).
I agree with you and wanted to get confirmation. Thank you Ambrose.
Your welcome. I would urge you to bookmark that article, it explains this point very well, and explains the reasons why there is confusion regarding this as well.
-
According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.
Well, how well-attended are the "resistance" Masses right now?
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
I mean, might must equal right then, according to that statement. Might as well go to the Novus Ordo if you're number hunting, and that has something to do with how good something is.
A future pope will come out definitely and say one way or the other. Until then, this is something contested. Whatever the future Pope's decision is, I'll go with.
I was only demonstrating that it is ironic that the reasons that Pius XII changed the rite, lack of attendance during the Holy Week, appears to be currently present at chapels that reject the reformed rite.
This point in no way changes the argument, but I do find it ironic.
If it were available here, I'd be living at Church the entire week (figuratively, of course,) especially after hearing the arguments that Fr. Hesse made as to the incredible value of the ancient rites.