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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 134

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 56509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #280 on: May 21, 2023, 07:06:03 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on May 21, 2023, 06:29:07 PM
.

Um, Ladislaus, did you even read what you posted? It doesn't say the smoke flowed white for 30 minutes. It says "A mix-up in smoke signals made it appear for about half an hour that Pius XII's successor had been chosen." If you read the whole article, what this means is that it took 30 minutes for the misunderstanding of the smoke signals to get resolved. In fact, it says explicitly right there in the second paragraph of the news article that the white smoke came out for "a full five minutes".

Can you please read that article again.

The part I also found very amusing was how the famous Silvio Negro article of Oct.27, 1958 referring to the mix up about the white smoke was actually about the conclave in 1939 that elected Pius XII. The article even indicated in the original Italian, "The Case of 1939."


:facepalm:
Logged

Offline LaCosaNostra

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #281 on: May 21, 2023, 09:38:27 PM »
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 21, 2023, 03:17:22 PM

Look at this website page for the definition of "public manifest formal heresy".

The page gives your definition.  I am look for the Church's definition of a public manifest formal heretic.



Quote
In regards to your second question, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis, states the following:

“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”

English translation of the above Latin:

“For not every sin offense (admissum) however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23) [Italics mine]

Pius XII didn't used the term sin, or the phrase "public manifest formal heresy."  He used the term admissum, which is a general term that can be sin, crime, or offense.  The reason he used that term specifically is because there are two schools of thought concerning what is required to be a member of the Church.  One holds that the external bonds alone suffice, the other maintains the external bonds and interior faith are necessary to be a true member of the Church. Since sin destroys interior faith, if Pius XII had used the word sin - the sin of heresy severs a person from the Church by it nature -  he would have been seen as teaching the latter opinion.  To avoid the appearance of weighing in on this centuries old debate, he used the ambiguous term admissum.

But let's see what Pius XII says in the very next paragraph:


Pius XII: "24. Let every one then abhor sin (peccatum), which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members. ' (August., Serm., CXXXVII)." 

If a person falls into sin without, yet is obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful (had retained the external bonds), he is to be received with greater love, for, as Augustine teaches, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."

To gain insight into the mind of Pius XII, we should ask who St. Augustine was referring to in the quote he cited? Was he referring to someone who was only guilty of a moral offense, or was he referring to those who openly attacking the faith, and therefore have apparently fallen into the sin of heresy, yet remained in communion with the Church?  It was the latter.  In the quote Pius XII cited, the Bishop of Hippo is speaking of the Pelagians who had not yet separated from the Church and joined a Pelagian sect.  Here is the full quote in context:

St. August., Sermin, CXXXVII:  “But because he went off, having been found guilty and detested by the Church rather than corrected and subdued, I was afraid that it was perhaps he himself who was trying to disturb your faith, and for this reason I thought I should mention his name.  But it makes no difference whether it is he or others who partake of his error.  For there are more than we would expect. And where they are not refuted, they win over others to their sect, and they are becoming so numerous that I do not know where they will turn up.  Yet we prefer that they be healed within the framework of the Church rather than cut off from its body like incurable members, at least if the very gravity of the situation permits this.”

So, when Pius XII said "if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ," he was including those who fall into errors against the faith, and who spread them openly.  As long as they remain within the framework of the Church, they remain part of the Church's body.  And remaining part of the body suffices for a person to hold office in the Church.
Logged

Offline LaCosaNostra

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #282 on: May 21, 2023, 09:57:48 PM »
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 21, 2023, 03:31:51 PM


The screenshot above is taken from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.



Notice that the Salaverri says "formal and manifest heretics ... have broken the social bond of faith and government established by Christ.  By severing the social bond of government, they have cut themselves off from "the framework of the Church" and hence are no longer part of the Church's body.

Here is how Salaverri defines a public heretic four pages earlier:

Quote
"A public heretic is someone who openly adheres to some heretical sect." (Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, p. 423)

No one who remains within the framework of the Church (i.e., has not severed the social bond of government) is a "public heretic," or a "formal and manifest heretic," according to the teaching of the theologian that you cited as your authority.






Logged

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #283 on: May 21, 2023, 10:08:56 PM »
Quote from: LaCosaNostra on May 21, 2023, 09:38:27 PM
The page gives your definition.  I am look for the Church's definition of a public manifest formal heretic.

DEFINITION OF HERESY

Can. 1325 (1917 Code) 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor.  2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.


Can. 751 (1983 Code) Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff [i.e., the legitimate one] or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.



IPSO FACTO LOSS OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR HERESY

Canon 188 §4 (1917 Code): “Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if the cleric…Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” 

Canon 2314 §1 º2 (1917 Code): states that heretics, “unless they respect warnings they are deprived of…office…with the warning being repeated, are deposed.”

Canon 194 §1 º2 (1983 Code): “The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself…a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church.” §2: “The removal mentioned in n. 2  can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.”

So both 1917 and 1983 Canon Law provide that a public heretic loses his office automatically, but the physical “enforcement” of that vacancy (kicking the bum out) requires a “warning” or a “declaration” by Church authorities. There seems to be no real difference between 1917 and 1983 in this matter.
Logged

Offline LaCosaNostra

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #284 on: May 21, 2023, 10:14:50 PM »
Quote from: Angelus on May 21, 2023, 10:08:56 PM
DEFINITION OF HERESY

Can. 1325 (1917 Code) 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor.  2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.


Can. 751 (1983 Code) Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff [i.e., the legitimate one] or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.



IPSO FACTO LOSS OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR HERESY

Canon 188 §4 (1917 Code): “Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if the cleric…Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

Canon 2314 §1 º2 (1917 Code): states that heretics, “unless they respect warnings they are deprived of…office…with the warning being repeated, are deposed.”

Canon 194 §1 º2 (1983 Code): “The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself…a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church.” §2: “The removal mentioned in n. 2  can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.”

So both 1917 and 1983 Canon Law provide that a public heretic loses his office automatically, but the physical “enforcement” of that vacancy (kicking the bum out) requires a “warning” or a “declaration” by Church authorities. There seems to be no real difference between 1917 and 1983 in this matter.


You defined heresy, and you showed what happens if someone publicly defects from the faith, but you didn't define public defection from the faith.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 134
« previous next »