Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege  (Read 7503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1827
  • Reputation: +473/-139
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege
« Reply #195 on: May 19, 2022, 08:20:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not a fan of the subjective vs. objective distinction, often also laid out as the "internal forum" vs. "external forum" distinction.  That confuses the matter.

    I refer to FORMAL vs. MATERIAL.  Formal does not mean "subjectively" ... as it has been spun (with the rise and growth of subjectivism, which is the core thinking behind V2 and Amoris Laetitia, etc.).  Formal refers to the fact that you effectively (at least implicitly) reject the rule of faith, the teaching authority of the Church.  This is why it is said that if you (pertinaciously) reject one core teaching of the Church, then you reject them all.  Why?  Because you reject the authority that's behind all teaching.  So in order to be a FORMAL heretic, one has to reject the teaching authority of the Church, at least implicitly.  That is why the priest in that thread joining Orthodox is a FORMAL heretic.  He has rejected the teaching authority of the Church.  It matters nothing whether he's sincere or insincere.  That is a matter of the internal forum that God alone can judge.  If the definition of FORMAL heresy pertains to matters of the internal forum, then NO ONE can ever be denounced as a heretic.  This was clearly articulated by St. Robert Bellarmine, and it's why he emphasizes MANIFEST heresy.

    NO TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC is a FORMAL HERETIC (well, there might be one or two lurking somewhere).  I know of no Traditional Catholic who rejects the teaching authority of the Church.

    Those who take some kind of theological position by reasoning from the teaching of the Church and who claim that their position is consistent with Church teaching are prima facie NOT formal heretics, since the fact that it matters to them that their position reconciles with Church teachings clearly indicates that they CARE about being consistent with Church teaching.

    While their position might be wrong and might in fact actually contradict Catholic teaching upon analysis, i.e. that kind of objective error does not entail formal heresy.

    In fact, many theologians argue that the term "heresy" is incorrectly used in the expression "material heretic".  Heresy (from the Greek haeresis) indicates "clinging to" or "adhering to" some error, so reasoning from the etymology of the term, some theologians say that merely material heresy is a contradiction of terms.

    Basically, though, the term has been applied (and some theologians did persist in using the term "material heresy" against those pushing the etymological sense) to those who reject a teaching of the Church that has the note of dogma.  So, in other words, if you commit some error against Catholic doctrine that does not have the note of de fide, you could be committing a grave sin against faith, but you would not be a heretic.

    So some theologians use "heresy" as a reference to the theological note of the doctrine/dogma being denied, and others use it only to refer to pertinacious adherence to said teaching.  This has been a major source of confusion, and I read a treatment of this problem in a pre-V2 theologian.

    So throwing the term "heresy" around is inherently confusing.  In fact, though, the Church has condemned various errors with the note of "heresy", and so the Church has used the term to refer to the theological note rather than to pertinacity, despite the arguments of the etymoloists.

    Perhaps a compromise position would be that the term "heresy" refers to a denial of a teaching that has the theological note of de fide, while the term "heretic" should only be applied to those who effectively reject the teaching authority of the Church.

    With this, you could say "your position is heretical" but not "you are a heretic."  So, you could say, "Sedevacantism is heretical." but not "Sedevacantists are heretics."  I think this would be a good compromise between the two schools of thought and might lift some of the confusion.
    I get what you’re saying but assuming Roman doesn’t agree with you my question still holds.  If he holds to V2 ecclesiology and thinks prots and Orthodox can be inside the church despite not being formal members then he should thijk the same can be true of Sedes at the VERY LEAST. I wouldn’t want to assume he meant otherwise unless he specifically said so 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8621
    • Reputation: +5211/-1632
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege
    « Reply #196 on: May 19, 2022, 08:24:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DL,
    I believe RT is saying you need to add a 3rd condition, which would be “acceptance of the visible Church” or something along those lines.  RT did not take for granted that your “professing the Catholic Faith” included being subject to the papacy because he feels (oddly) that SVs have rejected the papacy and also the visible Church.  I think that’s the point of his long, rambling post - acceptance of the visible church.  


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7426
    • Reputation: +4222/-742
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege
    « Reply #197 on: May 19, 2022, 08:34:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DL,
    I believe RT is saying you need to add a 3rd condition, which would be “acceptance of the visible Church” or something along those lines.  RT did not take for granted that your “professing the Catholic Faith” included being subject to the papacy because he feels (oddly) that SVs have rejected the papacy and also the visible Church.  I think that’s the point of his long, rambling post - acceptance of the visible church. 
    Yes, and Lad detailed that, which I agreed with in admitting how pithy my statement was (#155 & 156). All I'm showing is that my statement is not fundamentally different from Pius XII's statement, and therefore, isn't at all a Protestant ecclesiology (unlike the Novus Ordo, which believes even non-Catholics can be in the Church).
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8621
    • Reputation: +5211/-1632
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege
    « Reply #198 on: May 19, 2022, 09:36:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body
    I think RT is making the argument that SVs fall into the above category.  He's basically equating SVs with schism.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7426
    • Reputation: +4222/-742
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege
    « Reply #199 on: May 19, 2022, 09:45:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think RT is making the argument that SVs fall into the above category.  He's basically equating SVs with schism.
    Kind of, he's more or less trying to direct the argument into one about the visibility of the Church and sedevacantism, which had nothing to do with what I specifically said.

    Which, again, shows his hypocrisy when the body that he claims to be the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants, EO, Jєωs and Muslims all make up the same believers in the One God.
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7993
    • Reputation: +4028/-847
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege
    « Reply #200 on: May 19, 2022, 03:11:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Could you show me where Roman said SUBJECTIVELY Sedes are not Catholic?  If so I'll recant.  That would be ridiculous and inconsistent with his own theology.

    I didn't realize that I implied it was in an article.  I didn't mean to, I definitely knew this was in the combox.  I don't know if Mario changed his mind, I haven't gotten that impression.

    To be clear though, I'm not trying to bash the dude.  I know he's of good will doing his best to understand and apply Catholic dogma to our situation. I've defended sedes to/against people who think its ridiculous before.  Its an understandable position.

    I agree that Mario's comment was low on the uncharitable scale.  I still read NO Watch
    It just is all very frustrating.
    Did you actually miss this?

    Sedevacantists are heretics for defecting from the Church and the Faith and joining heretical sects.  The reason they don't realize they've left the Church, is because sedevacantists don't know what the Church is.  They don't belong to the Catholic Church, they believe the Catholic Church subsists in them.  It doesn't matter if they attend Fr. Jenkin's heretical sect, the late Fr. Cekada's sect, the CMRI sect, or are Home Aloners, they all think the Church of Christ subsists in them.  Sedevacantism is the second Protestant Revolt, and every sedevacantist has fallen into the same invisible Church heresy professed by Luther.

    If this was just "objective" talk, why would Matthew warn him to stop?
    How much longer Lord?

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33813
    • Reputation: +19892/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege
    « Reply #201 on: May 19, 2022, 03:14:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did you actually miss this?

    Sedevacantists are heretics for defecting from the Church and the Faith and joining heretical sects. 

    He's likening it to that video posted by Sean where the Catholic priest is formally renouncing Catholicism to become Orthodox.

    I pointed out that the "sedevacantists" aren't "joining" anything.  Even if they, say, go to a CMRI chapel, they didn't join the CMRI.  Many SVs go to SSPX chapels.  What did THEY "join"?